Smith v. JERSEY CENT. POWER
24 A.3d 300
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Gary and Eileen Smith alleged high neutral-to-earth voltage (NEV) from Jersey Central Power & Light caused shocks in their backyard.
- Defendant undertook system-wide NEV remediation over years; the extent of success became contested at trial.
- Jury found nuisance liable against defendant, awarding $145,000 for property damage and $50,000 for interference with use.
- Inverse condemnation claim was dismissed by the trial court; plaintiffs sought legal fees under N.J.S.A. 20:3-26(c) and taxed costs.
- Appellate court addressed dismissal of inverse condemnation, appealability related to taxed costs, and related nuisance issues.
- Cross-appeal challenged the nuisance verdict and prejudgment interest on diminution in property value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inverse condemnation viability after NEV findings | Verdict shows a taking. | No taking; lacks permanent physical occupation. | No inverse condemnation; nuisance framework applies without taking. |
| Finality and timing of taxed-costs ruling affecting appeal | Costs award discretionary and appeal to proceed. | Final judgment dated May 9, 2008; untimely otherwise. | Final judgment for appeal purposes on January 16, 2009; appeal timely for inverse condemnation. |
| Nuisance versus negligence in NEV context | NEV interference constitutes nuisance. | Nuisance requires unreasonable interference; negligence framework may apply. | Nuisance exists without proving negligence; Restatement distinctions upheld. |
| Does a not-negligent finding preclude nuisance liability | Jury finding supports nuisance claim. | Not negligent should preclude nuisance liability. | Not dispositive; nuisance can exist independently of negligence. |
| Judicial instructions on temporary nuisance and mitigation effects | Instructions misled on temporary nuisance. | Instructions clear and not misleading overall. | No reversible error; instructions considered as a whole were adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (taking requires permanent physical occupation; other invasions require balancing)
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1979) (balancing of interference with land use when not a permanent occupation)
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir. 2011) (taking analysis in non-permanent-occupation context)
- Simmons v. Loose, 418 N.J. Super. 206 (App.Div. 2011) (discusses NEV and related remedies in eminent domain context)
- Sans v. Ramsey Golf & Country Club, Inc., 29 N.J. 438 (1959) (nuisance requires balancing utility vs. harm; not simply annoyance)
- Martins v. Interstate Power Co., 652 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 2002) (nuisance may exist without proving negligence against utility)
- Van Dissel v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 181 N.J. Super. 516 (App.Div. 1981) (no right to jury trial on inverse condemnation)
- Majestic Realty Assocs. v. Toti Contracting Co., 30 N.J. 425 (1959) (nuisance liability not tied to negligence; balance of interests)