Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing, Inc. v. Davis
299 Ga. 155
| Ga. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Lynn and Duron Davis own and occupy a house ~625 feet from Toyo Tire’s large tire manufacturing facility, which expanded repeatedly and operates 24/7.
- Davises allege the facility creates a nuisance (noise, lights, odors, traffic, unsightliness) and a trespass (carbon black/"black dust" settling on their property), causing discomfort/annoyance and diminution of property value.
- Davises produced deposition testimony describing interrupted sleep, inability to use yard, masks worn outdoors, and other interference with enjoyment.
- Plaintiffs’ appraiser (Bruce Penn) testified the property had depreciated ~35–40% from nuisance and an additional ~10–15% from black dust trespass, based on paired-sales comparisons (without site visits to the Davises’ property).
- Toyo Tire moved for summary judgment arguing (1) plaintiffs lack evidence of proximate causation for the diminution of value and (2) plaintiffs cannot recover both diminution of value and damages for discomfort/annoyance (double recovery). Trial court denied summary judgment; Court of Appeals affirmed in part; Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence at summary judgment that the alleged nuisance/trespass proximately caused diminution in property value | Penn’s appraisal links industrial operations (noise, light, traffic, emissions) to depreciation; Davises’ testimony describes specific interferences | Penn did not inspect the Davises’ property or analyze whether comparator sites were similar; thus causation is unproven | Evidence (plaintiffs’ testimony + Penn’s opinions) is sufficient to survive summary judgment; admissibility/weight of expert testimony is for trial court/jury |
| Whether plaintiffs may recover both past discomfort/annoyance and diminution in property value for a continuing nuisance (double recovery) | Davises (owners and occupants) may recover separate damages: personal discomfort (past) and decreased market value (forward-looking) | Recovering both would duplicate recovery for same injury | Georgia law allows separate recoveries: past discomfort (occupant harm) and diminished market value (owner’s forward-looking loss) are distinct; Stanfield (contrary authority) disapproved |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court gatekeeping role for expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Rule 702 gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
- Georgia Northeastern R. Co. v. Lusk, 277 Ga. 245 (Ga. 2003) (cannot recover twice for the same injury where two recoveries would remedy identical harm)
- Columbus v. Myszka, 246 Ga. 571 (Ga. 1980) (occupant’s unlawful interference with enjoyment is compensable distinct from property damage)
- Toyo Tire North Am. Mfg., Inc. v. Davis, 333 Ga. App. 211 (Ga. App. 2015) (Court of Appeals decision below affirming denial of summary judgment)
- HNTB Georgia, Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 287 Ga. 641 (Ga. 2010) (trial court’s discretion in assessing expert reliability under OCGA § 24-7-702)
- Swift v. Broyles, 115 Ga. 885 (Ga. 1902) (owner-occupant may recover both for permanent injury to estate and for past discomfort when both distinct)
- Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Estate of Forrister, 332 Ga. App. 693 (Ga. App. 2015) (damages for discomfort and annoyance are distinct from realty damages)