979 N.E.2d 678
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Neighbors Connie Yates, Richard Yates, Jason Tibbs, and Pauline Tibbs sue Levi Wayne Kemp over alleged nuisance from Kemp's shooting range on Thorn Road, Marshall County.
- Kemp built the range in 1962 and expanded it in 1968, 1985, and 2006; no ordinances governed ranges at initial construction.
- Marshall County enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance by 2006; in 2008 the BZA granted conditional approval to continue operation.
- Plaintiffs purchased their properties (1995 for Yateses, 2006 for Tibbses) and allege nuisance, negligence, intentional distress, and strict liability.
- Trial court granted Kemp partial summary judgment: nuisance and emotional distress claims dismissed; damages from stray bullets dismissed; Tibbses’ property-damage claim narrowed; negligence and strict liability remained.
- On appeal, the court reverses and remands, focusing on whether section 14-22-31.5-6 provides safe harbor immunity for noise-related nuisance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 14-22-31.5-6 provides immunity for noise-related nuisance | Yateses/Tibbses: no applicable law existed at construction to trigger immunity. | Kemp: section 6 applies where law existed and was complied with; otherwise immunity applies. | Immunity not supported by plain language; nuisance claim survives; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wernke v. Halas, 600 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (nuisance analysis; nuisance per se vs. per accidens)
- Lesh v. Chandler, 944 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (evidence required for nuisance; nuisance requires inconvenience)
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing summary judgment; de novo on statutory interpretation)
- Allen v. First Nat’l Bank of Monterey, 845 N.E.2d 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (use of findings of fact in summary-judgment review)
- Gray v. D & G, Inc., 938 N.E.2d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (preservation of legislative intent; plain-language interpretation)
- In re Visitation of A.R., 723 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (statutory context and interpretation principles)
- Demming v. Underwood, 943 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (statutory interpretation; legislature’s intent governs)
- Muehlman v. Keilman, 272 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 1951) (nuisance proof: evidence of interference suffices)