Stickdorn v. Zook
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1921
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Stickdorns own a 120-acre Wayne County farm adjacent to Lantzes’ dairy started in 2003; milking parlor located ~15 feet from Stickdorns’ home; first manure-pit emptying and spreading in Feb–Mar 2004 with odors seeping into home; subsequent repeated manure spills and spreading through 2004–Apr 2005 causing odors, health symptoms, and a polluted stream; IDEM detected elevated ammonia-nitrogen and advised protective actions; Lantzes sold the dairy to Zooks in April 2005; Stickdorns filed suit on Nov 12, 2009 (6 years, 1 month after start of alleged conduct); complaint included negligence, nuisance, trespass, and related damages with later references to continued nuisance; trial court granted summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds, dismissing negligence claims but allowing nuisance/trespass claims to survive; appellate court reverses in part and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence claims are time-barred by a two-year limit. | Stickdorns argue six-year accrual applies to real-property damages. | Lantzes argue two-year period governs personal injury claims. | Two-year statute controls negligence claims; claims barred. |
| Whether nuisance and trespass claims are time-barred. | Nuisance is continuing/recurring; six-year period should apply. | Accrual and permanent-injury theory time-bar nuisance/trespass. | Nuisance and trespass claims survive; continuing/recurring nature governs accrual and abatement. |
| Whether the trial court correctly treated the nuisance as permanent in 2003. | Injury continued through 2005; not permanent by 2003. | Injury akin to permanent by 2003 due to long-standing impact. | Nuisance is intermittent/abatable; not permanent in 2003; accrual restarted with continuing conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolph v. Mangus, 400 N.E.2d 189 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (limitations accrual for permanent injury concept guidance)
- Whitehouse v. Quinn, 477 N.E.2d 270 (Ind.1985) (identifies accrual method and rule comparing causes of action)
- Ind. Pipeline Co. v. Christensen, 188 Ind. 400, 123 N.E. 789 (1919) (continuing nuisance doctrine; new action for each sustained injury)
- Ind. Pipeline Co. v. Christensen, 195 Ind. 106, 143 N.E. 596 (1924) (continuing nuisance/trespass; abatable nuisance allows successive actions)
- Doe v. United Methodist Church, 673 N.E.2d 839 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (discovery/ascertainable-damage rule in personal-injury accrual)
- Pflanz v. Foster, 888 N.E.2d 756 (Ind.2008) (limits accrual and scope for waste-related claims involving real property)
- Runkle v. Runkle, 916 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (accrual generally a question of law; summary judgment standard on limitations)
- May v. George, 101 N.E. 393 (Ind.1913) (continuing nuisance rule allowing later actions for last six years' injuries)