## Facts

- Homeowners lived near a municipal solid-waste landfill operated by Lee County Landfill SC, LLC.
- They alleged offensive odors from the landfill substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of their homes.
- They brought claims for nuisance, trespass, and negligence based on odors.
- At trial, they abandoned claims for loss of use, diminution in property value, and personal injury, seeking only non-economic damages (e.g., annoyance, discomfort, inconvenience, and interference with enjoyment and mental tranquility).
- A jury awarded compensatory damages on negligence, trespass, and nuisance, and punitive damages to each plaintiff.
- Post-verdict, the federal district court certified state-law questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court concerning liability theories, damages measures, and proof requirements.

## Issues

1. For a temporary nuisance or temporary trespass claim alleging only non-economic interference, are compensatory damages limited to the property’s lost rental value?
2. Can a trespass claim be based solely on invisible odors, without a physical and tangible intrusion?
3. For a permanent nuisance or permanent trespass claim where no restoration or cleanup costs are sought, are compensatory damages capped at the property’s full market value?
4. May plaintiffs pursue an independent negligence claim based on offensive odors migrating from neighboring property, or are they limited to nuisance and trespass?
5. If an odor-based negligence claim is available, must the standard of care and breach for landfill operations be established by expert testimony?

## Decision

- The court held that damages for a temporary nuisance or temporary trespass are limited to the lost rental value of the property (plus any properly proven special damages).
- The court held that odors alone cannot support trespass; trespass requires intrusion by a physical, tangible thing.
- The court held that for permanent nuisance or permanent trespass, compensatory damages are limited to the property’s full market value when restoration or cleanup costs are not sought.
- The court recognized that a negligence claim based on offensive odors is possible, but only if the plaintiff proves all traditional negligence elements.
- The court declined to impose a categorical expert-testimony requirement for landfill standard-of-care proof, directing trial courts to decide case-by-case based on technical complexity and common juror understanding.

## Legal Principles

- Temporary nuisance and temporary trespass damages are generally measured by the property’s lost rental value during the period of interference, not stand-alone non-economic “annoyance” damages divorced from that measure.
- Trespass requires a physical, tangible invasion; intangible intrusions such as odors are addressed through nuisance (and, in appropriate cases, negligence).
- Permanent nuisance and permanent trespass damages, absent restoration or cleanup costs, are capped at the property’s full market value to prevent duplicative recovery.
- An odor-based negligence theory is not a substitute for nuisance; it must satisfy duty, breach, causation, and legally cognizable damages under ordinary negligence rules.
- Whether expert testimony is needed to establish the standard of care for technically complex operations depends on whether the matter is beyond common knowledge of jurors.

## Conclusion

The court answered certified questions by limiting temporary-interference damages to lost rental value, rejecting odor-only trespass, capping permanent-interference damages at market value absent restoration costs, allowing odor-based negligence only under traditional negligence proof, and leaving expert-testimony necessity to case-specific judicial determination.


Babb v. Lee Cnty. Landfill SC, LLC, 747 S.E.2d 468 (S.C. 2013)