Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Justiss
397 S.W.3d 150
| Tex. | 2012Background
- In 1992, the Natural Gas Pipeline Company built a compressor station in Lamar County; residents complained of noise, odor, and lights interfering with their homes.
- Pre-1996 complaints by residents continued, culminating in 1998 with renewed concerns about nuisance conditions.
- In 1998, twelve residents sued the Company for temporary or permanent nuisance; the jury found a permanent nuisance first created on June 12, 1998 and damages for nine plaintiffs.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict; the Company appealed, challenging limitations, sufficiency of damages evidence, and prejudgment interest arguments.
- The Texas Supreme Court reversed portions of the appellate court’s decision, held that accrual supported 1998 as the start of the nuisance, but found the damages testimony insufficient and remanded for new trial on liability and damages.
- The twelve residents were: William Justiss, Darlene Justiss, Joseph Justiss, Richard Rast, Tommy Alspaugh, Judy Alspaugh, Barry Cope, Tina Cope, Joe Denton Mashburn, Christine Mashburn, Joe Donald Mashburn, and Judy Mashburn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual date for permanent nuisance | Pre-1996 complaints show accrual. | Accrual occurred before suit; more than two years prior to filing. | Evidence supports accrual in 1998 (June 12) rather than pre-1996. |
| Damages—sufficiency of diminished value evidence | Landowners proved decreased property values due to nuisance. | Testimony was conclusory/speculative and not supported by market basis. | Damages testimony insufficient; remand for new trial on damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex.2004) (establishes accrual when use/interference begins; ambiguous damages standards)
- City of Abilene v. Downs, 367 S.W.2d 153 (Tex.1963) (limits defense requires showing nuisance occurred >2 years before suit)
- Porras v. Craig, 675 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.1984) (owner may testify on market value but must base on market evidence)
- Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex.2004) (bare conclusions are not probative; value opinions must be substantiated)
- Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Gossett, 294 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.1956) (naked, unsupported opinions lack evidentiary probative force)