A fertilizer company had used bagged manure for many years to supplement the compost it prepared at its warehouse site in the suburbs for sale in its statewide retail outlets. Eventually, though, it became apparent to the fertilizer company that using bagged manure was too expensive and inefficient. Therefore, they stopped using bagged manure and began to receive manure in bulk shipments.
The plaintiff purchased the home next to the fertilizer company’s compost plant during the time it was using bagged manure. The plaintiff’s home used to be the fertilizer company’s headquarters before their expansion, and is the only residence in the area. The plaintiff never even knew the purpose of the plant until the fertilizer company began to receive the manure by truckload. Since then, at least two truckloads of manure pass the plaintiff’s house daily. The noxious odor in the immediate vicinity of the plant, including the plaintiff’s yard, is always noticeable and almost intolerable on warm days.
If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the fertilizer company based on nuisance, will the plaintiff prevail?
A. Yes, unless the fertilizer company’s methods are in conformity with those in general use in the industry.
B. No, if using bagged manure would substantially increase the fertilizer company’s costs.
C. No, unless the manure dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s property.
D. No, because the fertilizer company is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual.
{ 8 comments }
