344 S.W.3d 717
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- PSF operates large-scale hog farms in Gentry, Daviess, and Grundy Counties; fifteen Respondents claimed temporary nuisance at the Gentry County operation from 1999–2010.
- Respondents initially joined a 61-plaintiff class; circuit court severed and later reconsolidated claims into three groups by proximity.
- Trial produced a jury verdict awarding $825,000 to thirteen respondents, $250,000 to Phyllis Owens, and $75,000 to Billie Sue Miller; total $11,050,000.
- Circuit Court entered an amended judgment on March 22, 2010, with post-trial motions denied on May 24, 2010; PSF appealed.
- The appeals centered on damages measurement for temporary nuisance, jury instructions, consolidation, and admissibility of expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-residential property owners may recover non-economic damages for temporary nuisance. | Owens argues damages for loss of use/enjoyment apply to business land as well as residences. | PSF contends only diminution in property value or business value is recoverable for business property. | Yes; non-economic damages for loss of use/enjoyment are recoverable for business property. |
| Whether MAI 22.06 could include 'farm' to reflect business properties. | Respondents relied on enhanced damages for farmland-related nuisance. | Inclusion of 'farm' misstates law; damages must reflect non-economic harms. | Inclusion of 'farm' was proper; non-economic damages allowed for business properties. |
| Whether adding 'other emissions' to MAI 22.06 was supported by evidence. | Evidence showed emissions beyond odors, such as hog effluent, affected use and enjoyment. | PSF argued no trial evidence supported 'other emissions' as a separate basis. | Yes; substantial evidence supported 'other emissions' as a nuisance basis. |
| Whether reconsolidation of claims for trial was an abuse of discretion. | Respondents' cases were distinct and consolidation could cause prejudice. | Consolidation based on substantial overlap was rational and efficient. | No abuse; consolidation was proper given common questions and substantial factual overlap. |
| Whether evidence and procedures allowed judicial estoppel against experts and affected the verdict. | PSF argues plaintiffs misled court about fly/health claims to reconsolidate. | Trial court has discretion on evidence; estoppel not warranted in this single case. | Judicial estoppel not applied; admission of expert testimony within court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. ContiGroup, 292 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (damages for temporary nuisance include non-economic losses; measure includes loss of use and comfort)
- Hanes v. Cont'l Grain Co., 58 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (land use nuisance includes use and enjoyment of land; business use possible with damages)
- Moore v. Weeks, 85 S.W.3d 709 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (non-economic damages are recoverable for temporary nuisance)
- Brown v. Cedar Creek Rod & Gun Club, 298 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (non-economic damages for nuisance; de-emphasizes precise formulas)
- McCormack v. Capital Elec. Const. Co., 159 S.W.3d 387 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (factors for excessiveness; multi-factor test for verdicts)
- Rosen v. McLaughlin, 318 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. Banc. 1958) (abuse of discretion context regarding consolidation decisions)
- Syn, Inc. v. Beebe, 200 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; de novo review)
- Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. Banc. 2010) (instructional error; substantial evidence required for submissions)
- Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Prot. Dist., 257 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. Banc. 2008) (instructional error reviewed for prejudice; de novo standard)
- Giddens v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 29 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. Banc. 2000) (excessiveness standard; bias/prejudice analysis)
- Shockley v. Dir., Div. of Child Support Enforcement, 980 S.W.2d 173 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (judicial estoppel primarily in separate proceedings; not applicable within same case)
- State ex rel. Rosen v. McLaughlin, 318 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. Banc. 1958) (consolidation discretion context)