Ogle v. Ohio Power Co.
2012 Ohio 4986
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Ogles filed a 2007 complaint to enjoin a Tower construction by Ohio Power on the Cline Property.
- Tower was constructed in October 2008 on the Cline Property owned by Cline, Gubsch, and Plahuta.
- The trial court dismissed, but this court previously reversed to allow a private nuisance claim to proceed.
- Ogles alleged nuisance based on health hazards from electromagnetic emissions and the Tower’s unsightliness, plus diminution in property value.
- The case was decided on summary judgment; the court reviews de novo under Civ.R. 56 and resolves whether any genuine issues of material fact exist.
- The court held that the Tower does not create a nuisance, so Ohio Power is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tower constitutes a private nuisance | Ogles allege both qualified nuisance (negligence) and absolute nuisance (intentional creation) | Ohio Power contends no nuisance, as evidence fails on both theories | Tower not a nuisance; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether health hazards from emissions establish nuisance | Tower poses health risks due to electromagnetic emissions | No evidence shows health hazard; claims speculative | No genuine issue; health-evidence missing |
| Whether unsightliness alone supports nuisance | Tower’s appearance constitutes nuisance to neighboring property | Unsightliness alone is insufficient for nuisance | Unsightliness without more does not create nuisance |
| Whether diminution in property value supports nuisance | Tower caused value diminution warranting nuisance claim | No lawful basis shown beyond unsightliness | Diminution in value unsupported without nuisance evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogle v. Ohio Power Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 44 (4th Dist. 2008) (reversed trial-court dismissal on private nuisance claim; context for standard and nuisance theory)
- Brown v. Scioto Cty. Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (4th Dist. 1993) (distinguishes absolute vs. qualified nuisance; negligent acts may create nuisance)
- Adams v. Gorrell, 28 Ohio App.56 (4th Dist. 1927) (early nuisance framework; historical basis for nuisance types)
- Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 76 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. App. 1999) (displeasing height/shape alone not nuisance)
- Ness v. Albert, 665 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. App. 1983) (unsightliness without more not actionable nuisance)