Natale v. Everflow Eastern, Inc.
959 N.E.2d 602
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Paul C. Natale owns a residence at 2220 Tod Avenue, Warren, Ohio; Everflow Eastern, Inc. drilled a well and placed storage tanks on neighbor Kevin Harris's property in April 2004.
- Natale alleged nuisance, sought an injunction, claimed zoning-ordinance violations, and alleged intentional misconduct to retaliate against him for not granting an easement.
- Everflow obtained all necessary permits and complied with applicable regulations; locations were roughly 70 feet from Natale’s property line and 200 feet from his house, with tanks about 15 feet from the property line.
- Natale alleged the operation created offensive odor, noise, and flooding by diverting floodplain water onto his property.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Everflow on all claims, finding insufficient evidence of nuisance and noting preemption of local zoning.
- The appellate court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s analysis; a dissent argued Natale raised genuine issues of material fact regarding a qualified nuisance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on nuisance claims | Natale contends improper weighing of evidence fashioned a nuisance finding. | Everflow asserts no genuine material facts support nuisance; compliance defeats liability. | Summary judgment proper; no genuine issue on nuisance. |
| Whether Everflow's conduct constitutes negligence per se or a qualified nuisance | Natale asserts negligence per se or negligent maintenance creates nuisance. | No violation of specific duty per se; no unreasonably interfering maintenance shown. | No negligence per se or qualified-nuisance liability established. |
| Whether state preemption bars private nuisance claim based on local Warren ordinances | Warren ordinances (setbacks and nuisance provisions) can support a private nuisance claim despite state regulation. | R.C. 1509.02 preempts local regulation; state regulates drilling and related activities uniformly. | Preemption prevents private nuisance action under Warren ordinances; no private right of action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. Kovar, 2008-Ohio-4302 (Ohio 2008) (de novo review of summary-judgment decision)
- Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (Ohio 1993) (summary judgment standard; weigh credibility not allowed)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party must identify record basis; Civ.R.56 materials)
- Taylor v. Cincinnati, 143 Ohio St. 426 (Ohio 1944) (definition of nuisance; injury need not be physical)
- Metzger v. Pennsylvania, Ohio & Detroit RR. Co., 146 Ohio St. 406 (Ohio 1946) (nuisance categories; absolute vs. qualified)
- R.T.G., Inc. v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2002) (negligence or strict liability framework for nuisance)
- Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc., 68 Ohio St.2d 20 (Ohio 1981) (negligence per se not automatic; general standard)
- Kooyman v. Staffco Constr., Inc., 2010-Ohio-2268 (Ohio 2010) (negligence per se analysis requires specific statutory command)