## Facts

- Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. owned and operated a natural-gas pipeline and built a compressor station on a 20-acre tract in rural Denton County, Texas.
- Andrew and Shannon Gardiner owned a nearby 95-acre ranch across a narrow county road, used primarily for recreational purposes.
- After the station began operating, four large diesel engines ran continuously and generated loud, persistent noise.
- The Gardiners and other neighbors reported that the sound was severe and constant and interfered with the ranch’s use and enjoyment.
- Crosstex implemented noise-mitigation measures (including baffling and sound barriers), but the Gardiners contended the interference remained substantial.
- The Gardiners sued, alleging Crosstex intentionally and negligently caused a private nuisance that diminished the ranch’s value and enjoyment.

## Issues

1. Whether “nuisance” in Texas is a distinct cause of action or instead describes a type of legal injury involving interference with real property.
2. Under what fault theories (intent, negligence, strict liability) a defendant may be liable for causing a nuisance.
3. Whether the case required a new trial in light of the proper nuisance framework and the sufficiency/charge problems identified by the court of appeals.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court held that “nuisance” refers to a type of legal injury (substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land), not a standalone tort or a description of the defendant’s conduct.
- The Court held a defendant may be liable for causing a nuisance only if the nuisance results from:
  - intentional conduct,
  - negligent conduct, or
  - in narrow circumstances, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities or substances.
- The Court rejected strict-liability nuisance based solely on the idea that a land use is “abnormal and out of place” in its surroundings.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment remanding the case for a new trial so the claims could be retried under the clarified nuisance principles.

## Legal Principles

- A private nuisance is a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land that causes unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities.
- “Unreasonable” in nuisance focuses on the character and effect of the interference, judged objectively, not on a plaintiff’s unusual sensitivity.
- Nuisance liability requires an underlying basis of tort responsibility: intent, negligence, or limited strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities/substances posing a high risk of serious harm.
- A plaintiff asserting intentional or negligent nuisance need not prove a separate element that the defendant’s land use was independently “unreasonable”; the relevant unreasonableness is addressed through the interference and the applicable fault standard.
- Whether an interference is substantial and unreasonable is ordinarily a fact question that depends on context such as intensity, duration, locality, and surrounding conditions.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court clarified that nuisance in Texas is an injury involving substantial, objectively unreasonable interference with property use and enjoyment, and that liability depends on proving intentional or negligent conduct (or narrowly defined strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities); the case was remanded for a new trial under this framework.


Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016)