## Facts

- Nearby homeowners sued a cattle feedlot operator, alleging that an expansion to feed approximately 9,000 cattle substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of their homes.
- The alleged interferences included manure accumulation, water pollution, odors, insect infestation, increased birds, dust, and noise, and asserted declines in property value.
- The case was tried to a jury in the district court.
- The jury was instructed to consider the homeowners’ alleged injury in relation to the social value of the feedlot operation and the interests of the community.
- The jury found no nuisance, and the district court entered judgment for the feedlot operator, denying damages and injunctive relief.
- On appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for a new trial, relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826(b).
- The Idaho Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Idaho nuisance law adopts Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826(b), which can impose liability for serious harm with feasible damages even when the utility of the conduct outweighs the harm.
2. Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury to weigh the social value of the feedlot operation and the interests of the community in determining nuisance.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and affirmed the district court’s judgment for the feedlot operator.
- The court held that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826(b) does not represent Idaho law.
- The court sustained the defense verdict that the feedlot did not constitute a nuisance under Idaho’s nuisance doctrine as applied in this case.
- A dissent would have allowed compensation for serious interferences even if the operation’s overall utility justified its continuation.

## Legal Principles

- Idaho nuisance law does not adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826(b) as an independent basis for liability where damages are feasible despite conduct whose utility outweighs the harm.
- In determining whether an interference constitutes a nuisance, Idaho permits consideration of the gravity of the harm in relation to the utility of the defendant’s conduct, including broader community interests.
- Statements in prior Idaho cases suggesting adoption of § 826(b) may be treated as nonbinding dictum and do not establish Idaho law absent adoption by the Idaho Supreme Court.
- Policy considerations tied to the state’s economic reliance on agriculture and other resource-based industries may inform the court’s refusal to expand nuisance liability in a manner that would impose substantial ongoing costs on socially beneficial enterprises.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for a feedlot operator and declined to adopt Restatement (Second) of Torts § 826(b), leaving Idaho nuisance doctrine grounded in a utility-and-harm balancing approach that allows consideration of community and economic interests.


Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., Inc., 108 Idaho 602, 701 P.2d 222 (Idaho 1985)