McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 865
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Synergy operates large CAFO hog farms in Barton County, Missouri.
- Twelve residents sued claiming temporary nuisance from odors, emissions, and flies starting in 2007.
- Structure: Kenoma sow farm; piglets moved to Nichols and Fischbacher nurseries under contracts with Synergy; landowner Paul Stefan irrigates with effluent from Kenoma lagoon.
- Jury awarded compensatory damages to twelve plaintiffs after a two-week trial in 2011.
- Trial court denied Synergy’s post-trial motions; Synergy appeals with multiple issues.
- Court affirm in part and reverse in part, addressing damages timing, pleadings, nuisance definition, MAI instructions, agency vs. utilization theories, severance, and reductions under Section 537.060.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages admissibility post-petition | Synergy: damages after filing were inadmissible | Respondents: damages may accrue post-filing due to continuing nuisance | Points One and Two denied; post-filing damages allowed under discretionary standards. |
| Definition/instruction of nuisance | Synergy: need broader definition beyond Green’s standard | Respondents: MAI 22.06 aligned with current law; instruction A inappropriate | Point Three denied; MAI 22.06 properly reflects current law. |
| Use of non-MAI instructions (agency vs. utilization) | Synergy: these Instr. 22, 24, 37, 39 misstate the law | Respondents: language is permissible reflecting MAI framework | Point Four denied; instructions properly permitted and supported by evidence. |
| Double recovery for Bentlage plaintiffs | Synergy: two awards for same nuisance should not stand | Respondents: separate theories may cause duplicative damages | Point Six granted; two $75,000 awards deemed duplicative; one per plaintiff stands; other reversed. |
| Reduction under Section 537.060 based on settlements | Synergy: settlement reductions should apply; pleaded properly | Respondents: reduction improper or insufficiently pleaded | Point Seven granted; settlements used to reduce specific Bentlage judgments accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Fred Weber, Inc., 254 S.W.3d 874 (Mo. banc 2008) (nuisance has dual components: unreasonableness and substantial impairment)
- Sofka v. Thal, 662 S.W.2d 502 (Mo. banc 1983) (significant harm test for nuisance used historically)
- Frank v. Environmental Sanitation Management, Inc., 687 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1985) (current nuisance definition adopted; balancing of private/public rights)
- Thompson v. Hodge, 348 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App. 1961) (damages approach in nuisance suits; timeframe considerations)
- Gibson v. City of St. Louis, 349 S.W.3d 460 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011) (section 537.060 reduction context; joint tortfeasor considerations)