TOYO TIRE NORTH AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. DAVIS Et Al.
333 Ga. App. 211
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Duron and Lynn Davis own and live on property ~1,000 feet across Hwy 411 from Toyo Tire’s manufacturing plant; Toyo began operations in 2006 and expanded through multiple phases through 2011 and beyond.
- Plaintiffs allege continuous noise, lights, truck traffic, foul odors, unsightly facility appearance, and recurring black dust (believed to be carbon black) invading their Property, causing nuisance and trespass and diminishing property value.
- Plaintiffs sent a demand letter in 2007 and filed suit in February 2013; Toyo moved for summary judgment which was denied; interlocutory appeal followed.
- Toyo conceded it uses large quantities of carbon black and holds an air permit; record shows both routine particulate emissions and occasional filter ruptures/release reports to DNR.
- Plaintiffs offered an appraiser opining a 40–50% diminution in value due to proximity to the plant (15–25% of that attributed to particulates); Toyo challenged causation and expert foundation.
- Trial court denied summary judgment on all live claims (statute-of-limitations excepted as to surface-water diversion); this appeal affirms that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations (nuisance/trespass) | Davises: invasions are continuing/permanent; may recover past and prospective damages; not time-barred except for >4 yrs before suit | Toyo: claims barred by 4-year statute for trespass/damage to realty | Court: Under Cox/Restatement §930, continuing invasions permit election and tolling for prospective damages; only pre-4-year past damages barred |
| Causation for diminution in value | Davises: appraiser tied diminution to plant operations/proximity and particulates; presents triable issue | Toyo: expert didn’t specifically link alleged nuisances to diminution; opinion lacks foundation | Court: Expert relied on facts made known to him; deficiencies go to weight not admissibility; triable issue exists (dissent disagrees) |
| Source/identity of black dust (carbon black) | Davises: timing, observations, plant proximity, plant’s use/emission of carbon black create fact issue that dust originates from Toyo | Toyo: plaintiffs have no proof dust is carbon black or from Toyo | Court: Evidence of Toyo’s carbon black use, emissions, ruptures, and Davises’ observations create dispute of material fact; denial of summary judgment affirmed |
| Double recovery (diminution + personal discomfort) | Davises: may recover both property and personal damages | Toyo: plaintiffs shouldn't recover both | Court: Georgia permits recovery for both person and property damages in nuisance; argument premature |
| Nuisance based on unsightliness | Davises: unsightliness is one of several nuisance factors | Toyo: unsightliness alone is not actionable nuisance | Court: Oklejas limited to unsightliness alone; here unsightliness is one aspect of broader nuisance — claim survives on summary judgment |
| Nuisance based on increased traffic | Davises: increased traffic is one of several nuisances caused by the plant | Toyo: increased traffic alone cannot be nuisance | Court: Increased traffic may be one element of a nuisance claim; survives as part of the combined allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Cambridge Square Towne Houses, Inc., 239 Ga. 127 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (continuing invasions rule; election for past and prospective damages)
- Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Forrister, 289 Ga. 331 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (application of Restatement limitations rules for public-utility nuisances)
- City of Atlanta v. Kleber, 285 Ga. 413 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (nuisance accrual principles for enterprises serving public interest)
- Taylor v. Campbell, 320 Ga. App. 362 (Ga. Ct. App.) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Layfield v. Dept. of Transp., 280 Ga. 848 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (expert opinion deficiencies go to weight not automatic exclusion at summary judgment)
- Humphrey v. Morrow, 289 Ga. 864 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (experts may rely on facts or data made known to them)
- Oklejas v. Williams, 165 Ga. App. 585 (Ga. Ct. App.) (unsightliness alone typically not a nuisance)