## Facts

- Continental Grain Co. operated four hog farms in northwest Missouri.
- 108 nearby residents sued for nuisance, alleging strong odors, flies/insects, and contaminated water that substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of their homes and properties.
- The case was tried to a jury over approximately three and a half months.
- The jury found for 52 plaintiffs and awarded $100,000 in damages to each prevailing plaintiff; 51 of those prevailing plaintiffs were respondents on appeal.
- Plaintiffs pursued a temporary nuisance theory and presented evidence of specific practices and technologies that could reduce odors, insects, and water contamination.
- Plaintiffs also presented evidence that the proposed mitigation measures were economically feasible for Continental to implement.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs failed, as a matter of law, to prove the alleged nuisance was abatable, as required to support a temporary nuisance theory.
2. Whether the absence of evidence of diminished property value required treating the nuisance as permanent and barred the damages awarded.
3. Whether non-owner residents with possessory interests could maintain nuisance claims and recover for interference with use and enjoyment.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Continental’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the nuisance was abatable and therefore temporary.
- The court held diminished property value evidence was not required for temporary nuisance damages based on loss of use and enjoyment.
- The court held lawful non-owner occupants with possessory interests could recover for nuisance-related interference with use and enjoyment.
- The $100,000 awards to each of the respondent plaintiffs were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Nuisance is an unreasonable use of property that substantially impairs another’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.
- On review of a denial of JNOV, the court views evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and will reverse only when no reasonable juror could have found for the prevailing party.
- A nuisance may be treated as temporary when evidence supports that the condition is abatable; evidence of specific mitigation methods and their economic feasibility can satisfy the abatement showing.
- Temporary nuisance damages may be awarded for loss of use and enjoyment (including discomfort and inconvenience) and do not require proof of diminished property value.
- Nuisance claims for interference with use and enjoyment may be brought by persons with possessory interests, not only fee owners.

## Conclusion

The court upheld substantial nuisance verdicts against a hog-farm operator, ruling that evidence of feasible abatement supported treating the interference as a temporary nuisance with damages for loss of use and enjoyment, and that lawful non-owner occupants could recover for the impairment of their possessory enjoyment of the property.


Hanes v. Continental Grain Co., 58 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)