458 S.W.3d 319
Mo.2015Background
- In 2011 Missouri enacted §537.296, which limits private temporary-nuisance recovery arising from property "primarily used for crop or animal production," allowing only economic damages (diminution in market/rental value and documented medical costs) and barring non‑economic damages (loss of use/enjoyment, inconvenience, discomfort).
- Days after the statute took effect, Bohr Farms began operating a CAFO for >4,000 hogs; Cargill owned the hogs and contracted Bohr to raise them.
- Nearby landowners (Appellants) sued Bohr and Cargill alleging temporary nuisance from offensive odors and related emissions that interfered with use and enjoyment of their properties; they sought only non‑economic "use and enjoyment" damages, not diminution or medical costs under §537.296.2(2).
- Respondents moved for summary judgment arguing §537.296 barred the plaintiffs’ claimed non‑economic damages and that negligence/conspiracy claims were not independent of the nuisance claim under §537.296.6(1).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Respondents; the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting constitutional challenges to §537.296 and holding the negligence/conspiracy claims were not independent of the nuisance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §537.296 effects an unconstitutional private taking (Mo. Const. art. I, §28) | Statute forces forfeiture of use/enjoyment for private agricultural benefit—equivalent to a private taking | Statute does not authorize private takings; promotes public agricultural benefit so any taking is public | No private taking; statute serves legitimate public purpose and plaintiffs failed to show private use |
| Whether §537.296 effects a taking for public use without just compensation (art. I, §26) | Limiting non‑economic damages and treating later claims as permanent creates an easement/regulatory taking without compensation | Diminution in rental/market value for temporary takings satisfies just compensation; §537.296.3 (permanent nuisance conversion) not ripe here | No unconstitutional taking; diminution in rental value provides constitutionally required compensation; easement argument not ripe |
| Equal protection and substantive due process challenge | Law targets rural property owners and restricts fundamental property rights, so strict scrutiny required | Classification is neither suspect nor infringes a fundamental right; statute rationally advances legitimate agricultural interest | Rational‑basis review applies; statute is rationally related to promoting agricultural economy; equal protection and substantive due process claims fail |
| Whether negligence and conspiracy claims are independent of nuisance (§537.296.6(1)) | Plaintiffs may recover non‑economic damages via separate tort theories (negligence, conspiracy, vicarious liability) | Those claims are based on same facts as nuisance and therefore not independent under the statute | Negligence, conspiracy, and vicarious liability claims are not independent of the nuisance claim and are barred as to non‑economic damages |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard)
- State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. banc 2013) (statutory constitutionality—de novo review and presumption of validity)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Dolan, 398 S.W.3d 472 (Mo. banc 2013) (public-use takings analysis)
- Byrom v. Little Blue Valley Sewer Dist., 16 S.W.3d 573 (Mo. banc 2000) (temporary nuisance and compensation measured by rental value)
- McCracken v. Swift & Co., 265 S.W. 91 (Mo. 1924) (common‑law temporary nuisance damages include non‑economic losses)
- Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1949) (measure of compensation for temporary taking as rental value)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (takings and substantial advancement analysis)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (regulatory‑takings Penn Central factors)
- Lehndorff Geneva, Inc. v. State, 744 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1988) (legislative regulation to promote agricultural economy is legitimate public purpose)
- Kilmer v. Mun, 17 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. banc 2000) (legislature may modify or abolish common‑law causes of action)