## Facts

- In 1968, Scioto County and the State of Ohio agreed that the County would construct a wastewater-treatment facility on state-owned land near Lucasville, Ohio, to treat sewage generated by the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF); the plant later also served a vocational school and approximately 100 residences.
- In 1969, the State leased the plant site to the County for operation and maintenance for a term of years.
- Jack D. Brown and Barbara Brown purchased a home about one-quarter mile from the treatment plant and moved in on March 12, 1978.
- The Browns alleged that odors were initially mild but worsened substantially in the early 1980s; during the summer of 1983, the odor allegedly persisted around the clock and was described as comparable to septic-tank cleaning.
- The Browns testified that fumes and odors sometimes made it impossible to be outside and caused nausea, and that insects were attracted by plant conditions.
- The Browns attempted to sell their home, but a prospective buyer withdrew after learning about the odor problem.
- The Browns sued, alleging that defendants negligently and/or willfully and wantonly constructed, operated, and maintained the sewage-treatment facility so that noxious gases and odors settled on their property, reducing value, interfering with use and enjoyment, and causing emotional and physical distress; they also sought injunctive relief.
- Through amended pleadings, the Browns named the County Commissioners and additional state-related defendants; the state-related defendants were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because claims against the State had to be brought in the Ohio Court of Claims.
- The County Commissioners moved for summary judgment on all claims; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- Only Barbara Brown filed a notice of appeal; the appellate court treated the judgment as to Jack Brown as affirmed because he did not appeal.
- Evidence offered by the Browns to oppose summary judgment included that plant equipment was old and in poor condition, one oxidation ditch was inoperable (leaving sewage stationary and breeding bacteria), and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency had cited the plant multiple times.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawfully licensed and regulated sewage-treatment plant can constitute an absolute (strict-liability) private or public nuisance, or whether plaintiffs must proceed under a qualified (negligence-based) nuisance theory.
2. Whether the Browns’ evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that negligent operation or maintenance caused a qualified private nuisance by substantially and unreasonably interfering with use and enjoyment of their land.
3. Whether the Browns produced evidence supporting a qualified public nuisance (including a statutory/regulatory nuisance) and, if required, a special injury different in kind from that suffered by the public generally.
4. Whether odors and fumes, without sufficient proof of a physical invasion or damage to the land, can support a trespass claim.
5. Whether the nuisance claims were time-barred, including whether the alleged condition was a continuing nuisance rather than a permanent one.
6. Whether injunctive relief was available against the County Commissioners where the record indicated the County no longer operated the plant.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment on absolute private nuisance and absolute public nuisance, treating the plant’s operation as regulated and not subject to strict-liability nuisance on this record.
- Reversed summary judgment on qualified private nuisance, holding that evidence of severe odors and alleged poor maintenance and regulatory citations could permit a factfinder to find negligent operation causing substantial interference with the Browns’ property use.
- Reversed summary judgment on qualified public nuisance (including a nuisance tied to environmental regulations), holding that the record could support liability and that the Browns presented evidence of harm distinct from the general public, including loss of outdoor use and interference with the sale of their home.
- Affirmed summary judgment on trespass because the claimed invasion was not supported by sufficient evidence of the type of physical intrusion or damage required for trespass.
- Rejected summary judgment based on the statute of limitations at this stage as to the qualified nuisance claims, treating the allegations as capable of constituting a continuing nuisance given evidence that conditions varied with operation and could be alleviated.
- Affirmed denial of injunctive relief against the County Commissioners because an injunction would be ineffective where the County no longer operated the facility.
- Affirmed the judgment as to Jack D. Brown due to his failure to appeal; affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on Barbara Brown’s qualified nuisance claims.

## Legal Principles

- A lawfully authorized and regulated sewage-treatment facility generally does not give rise to absolute (strict-liability) nuisance; nuisance liability, if any, is typically based on negligent operation or maintenance (qualified nuisance).
- Private nuisance requires a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land; recurring offensive odors can satisfy this standard when linked to negligent operation.
- Public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public; a private plaintiff generally must show a special injury different in kind from that suffered by the public at large to recover individually.
- Environmental regulations can supply standards relevant to whether conduct constitutes a qualified (including statutory) public nuisance.
- Trespass requires a physical intrusion (or its equivalent) onto another’s land; odors and fumes, without sufficient proof of physical invasion or damage, are ordinarily addressed through nuisance rather than trespass.
- For limitations purposes, a condition may be treated as a continuing nuisance where the harmful effects recur and appear tied to ongoing operation that can change or be corrected, rather than a fixed permanent condition.
- Injunctive relief requires that the defendant have present control over the complained-of condition; relief is improper where the defendant no longer operates the facility at issue.

## Conclusion

The Fourth District held that Barbara Brown’s evidence of severe, recurring sewage-plant odors and alleged negligent maintenance (including an inoperable oxidation ditch and repeated Ohio EPA citations) created triable issues on qualified private and qualified public nuisance, but did not support absolute nuisance, trespass, or an injunction against county commissioners who no longer operated the plant; the court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings limited to the qualified nuisance claims.


Brown v. County Commissioners of Scioto County, 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (1993)