139 So. 3d 1117
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- USA Speedway operates a commercial racetrack in Union Parish, Louisiana; neighbors sued for noise and dust damages and sought a permanent injunction.
- Plaintiffs alleged the track runs on weekends late into the night and occasionally during the week, causing sleep disturbance and health impacts.
- Trial court held La. C.C. arts. 667-669 apply and granted a permanent injunction after a bench trial on the merits and damages were bifurcated.
- Expert testimony and contemporaneous sound recordings were presented; plaintiffs claimed noise levels were excessive and damaging to ordinary sensibilities.
- USA presented opposing witnesses and argued abatement measures reduced nuisance; the court weighed credibility and found the nuisance substantial.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the injunction, concluding the nuisance caused real damage and irreparable harm despite abatement efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether real damage supports the injunction | USA argues no real damage proven; nuisance must be strict. | USA contends evidence shows only inconvenience, not real damage. | Real damage proven; nuisance substantial and irreparable harm established. |
| Burden of proof for a permanent injunction | Plaintiffs rely on preponderance of the evidence per Rodrigue v. Copeland. | USA argues strict proof or clear and convincing standard. | Burden is preponderance of the evidence for a permanent injunction. |
| Tailoring the injunction to circumstances | A broad shutdown is necessary due to ongoing nuisance. | The injunction should be narrowly tailored to specific nuisance levels. | Judgment not overly broad; no feasible narrower injunction given evidence of persistent nuisance. |
| Weight and admissibility of sound evidence | Verret’s measurements show high decibel levels during racing. | Some readings include non-racing periods and potential measurement flaws. | Trial court’s credibility determinations respected; sound evidence supported finding of nuisance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodrigue v. Copeland, 475 So.2d 1071 (La. 1985) (nuisance and real damage standard; balancing rights of neighbors)
- Barrett v. T.L. James & Co., 671 So.2d 1186 (La.App.2d Cir. 1996) (test for nuisance; excessive inconvenience and damage)
- Inabnet v. Exxon Corp., 642 So.2d 1243 (La. 1994) (extensive nuisance doctrine; exceptional inconveniences)
- Parish of East Feliciana ex rel. East Feliciana Parish Police Jury v. Guidry, 923 So.2d 45 (La.App.1st Cir. 2005) (Guidry on nuisance; expert testimony considerations)
- Dubos v. Dreyfous, 27 So. 663 (La. 1900) (strict proof historically required for injunction)
- Robichaux v. Huppenbauer, 245 So.2d 385 (La. 1971) (strict proof standard for nuisance abatement)
- Slavant v. Calhoun Motor Speedway, 626 So.2d 771 (La.App.2d Cir. 1993) (injunction terms may be tailored to noise thresholds)
- Easterly v. Carr, 361 So.2d 279 (La.App.1st Cir. 1978) (narrowing injunctions in noisy motorbike cases)
- Salter v. B.W.S. Corp., Inc., 290 So.2d 821 (La. 1974) (injunction standards for nuisance under civil code)