## Facts

- Neighboring residents living near an industrial-scale hog operation in rural North Carolina sued a corporate hog producer for private nuisance.
- The facility used a “lagoon-and-sprayfield” system to store and disperse hog waste, and neighbors reported persistent odors, insects/pests, and noise interfering with residential use and enjoyment.
- The producer contracted with a grower that owned and operated the farm, but the producer set production requirements and exercised contractual control over key practices tied to the alleged nuisance (including waste handling and related operational decisions).
- Neighbors presented evidence that the state had barred new waste lagoons and that studies and community complaints had documented harmful effects of the lagoon-and-sprayfield system; they contended the producer knew of these harms yet continued the practices because alternatives were more expensive.
- The jury found for the neighbors and awarded compensatory damages for loss of use and enjoyment and for annoyance and discomfort, plus punitive damages that were later reduced under a state statutory cap.
- On appeal, the producer challenged, among other things, nonjoinder of the grower, limitations/instructions, availability of annoyance-and-discomfort damages after a statutory amendment, expert evidentiary rulings, vicarious-liability instructions, and punitive damages (including admission of parent-company finances and executive compensation).

## Issues

1. Whether the contract grower was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 such that the case could not proceed solely against the corporate producer.
2. Whether the district court erred on statute-of-limitations treatment and by refusing a requested “continuing nuisance” jury instruction.
3. Whether a 2017 statutory amendment to the state Right to Farm Act barred compensatory recovery for annoyance and discomfort in private nuisance actions.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting and excluding expert testimony and related evidence.
5. Whether the jury instructions improperly allowed vicarious liability for the grower’s conduct.
6. Whether punitive damages were supported and whether the amount determination was tainted by admission of parent-company wealth and executive-compensation evidence.

## Decision

- Affirmed denial of Rule 19 joinder; the grower was not necessary or indispensable.
- Affirmed the district court’s statute-of-limitations handling and refusal of the requested continuing-nuisance instruction.
- Affirmed that state nuisance law permitted annoyance-and-discomfort damages; the 2017 Right to Farm Act amendment was substantive and forward-looking and did not retroactively bar the neighbors’ compensatory recovery.
- Affirmed challenged expert-related evidentiary rulings as within the district court’s discretion.
- Affirmed as to liability instructions; any instructional imperfections were not prejudicial.
- Affirmed entitlement to punitive damages but vacated the punitive-damages amount and remanded for a new trial limited to the amount, excluding parent-company financial and executive-compensation evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 19 does not require joinder of a potential joint tortfeasor where complete relief is available among existing parties and the absent party’s nonjoinder does not create inconsistent obligations.
- Private nuisance liability may rest on a defendant’s own policies and operational control that substantially contribute to an unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of property, even where a contractor operates the facility.
- Under North Carolina nuisance law, compensatory damages may include loss of use and enjoyment and damages for annoyance and discomfort; a substantive statutory change generally operates prospectively absent clear retroactive application.
- Appellate review of trial evidentiary gatekeeping, including expert testimony rulings, is for abuse of discretion with substantial deference to the trial court.
- Punitive damages may be upheld as warranted on proof of aggravating conduct, but the amount may require retrial if improperly admitted wealth-related evidence likely influenced the award; on retrial, such evidence may be excluded to avoid unfair prejudice and due process concerns.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit sustained the neighbors’ nuisance verdict and compensatory damages, rejected joinder and instructional challenges, and held that the 2017 Right to Farm Act amendment did not retroactively eliminate annoyance-and-discomfort damages, but it required a new trial on the amount of punitive damages because parent-company wealth and executive-compensation evidence was improperly used to set the award.


McKiver v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, 980 F.3d 937 (4th Cir. 2020)