## Facts

- Harry and Mary Hendricks owned about 2.95 acres intended for a home site or possible trailer development.
- Walter S. Stalnaker owned about 10 adjacent acres and built a home on a portion of it.
- Much of Stalnaker’s tract had been disturbed by prior strip mining; a rear well produced poor-quality water, and Stalnaker spent about $3,000 unsuccessfully trying to treat it.
- Stalnaker drilled a second well near the property line with the Hendrickses to obtain a usable domestic water supply.
- The county health department required at least 100 feet between a water well and a septic system to issue permits.
- Because of terrain and disturbance on their tract, the Hendrickses asserted the only feasible septic location was near the boundary; Stalnaker’s well made any septic site fall within 100 feet.
- The health department refused to issue the Hendrickses a septic permit due to the separation requirement.
- The Hendrickses sued, alleging the well was a private nuisance because it prevented residential use by blocking a septic permit.
- A jury found a private nuisance, and the circuit court ordered the well abated; Stalnaker appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Stalnaker’s water well substantially and unreasonably interfered with the Hendrickses’ use and enjoyment of their land so as to constitute a private nuisance.
2. Whether interference is “unreasonable” only when the gravity of the harm outweighs the social value of the defendant’s activity under a balancing test.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the judgment and abatement order.
- The court held the well did not constitute a private nuisance because drilling and maintaining it was not an unreasonable use of Stalnaker’s land under the gravity-of-harm versus social-value balancing test.
- The court emphasized that both domestic wells and septic systems are common, necessary residential uses and that each party faced limited practical alternatives due to site conditions.
- The absence of evidence that Stalnaker acted maliciously or solely to injure the Hendrickses weighed against finding unreasonableness.

## Legal Principles

- A private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s private use and enjoyment of land.
- An interference is unreasonable when the gravity of the harm outweighs the social value of the activity alleged to cause the harm.
- In applying the balancing test, courts may consider the utility and suitability of the defendant’s conduct, the severity of the plaintiff’s harm, the feasibility and cost of alternatives, and the comparative burdens imposed by each party’s proposed use.

## Conclusion

Because the challenged well served a necessary residential function, lacked improper motive, and did not impose harm that outweighed its social utility when compared with the competing septic-system use, the court concluded the interference was not “unreasonable” and reversed the nuisance finding and abatement order.


Hendricks v. Stalnaker, 181 W. Va. 31, 380 S.E.2d 198 (W. Va. 1989)