## Facts

- G.W. Morgan and his wife owned and occupied a nine-acre tract containing their home, a restaurant, and a trailer park.
- High Penn Oil Co. operated an oil refinery about 1,000 feet from the Morgans’ residence.
- On certain hours of two or three days each week, the refinery emitted nauseating gases and odors that drifted onto plaintiffs’ land.
- The emissions caused headaches, nausea, and vomiting to plaintiffs, their family, and customers, and interfered with the use and rental value of the restaurant and trailer park.
- Plaintiffs repeatedly complained to High Penn, but the refinery continued operating in the same manner despite knowledge of the effects.
- Plaintiffs sought temporary damages and an injunction to abate the alleged private nuisance.
- Defendants contended the refinery was a lawful business, not a nuisance per se, and could be actionable only if negligently constructed or operated; they claimed plaintiffs failed to prove negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether recurring noxious emissions from a lawful oil refinery that substantially interfere with neighboring land can constitute an actionable private nuisance without proof of negligent construction or operation.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ pleadings and proof supported recovery on an intentional private nuisance theory rather than only negligence.
3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to hold Southern Oil Transportation Co. liable for creating, maintaining, or controlling the alleged nuisance.

## Decision

- The court held that a lawful oil refinery may be a private nuisance in fact, and that intentional private nuisance liability may exist regardless of the care exercised.
- The court concluded the complaint and evidence were sufficient to submit to the jury whether High Penn intentionally and unreasonably invaded plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of land.
- The court recognized that injunctive relief may be available to abate continuing noxious emissions when legal damages are inadequate.
- As to Southern Oil Transportation Co., the court held the evidence was insufficient to connect it to creation, maintenance, or control of the nuisance, and directed nonsuit.
- As to High Penn, the court ordered a new trial based on instructional error, while approving the governing nuisance doctrine applied to the claim.

## Legal Principles

- A private nuisance is a substantial and nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land.
- A lawful activity is not a nuisance per se, but may become a nuisance in fact due to location or the manner of maintenance or operation.
- Intentional private nuisance liability does not depend on negligence; one who intentionally creates or maintains a private nuisance is liable regardless of the degree of care used to avoid harm.
- An invasion is “intentional” when the actor acts to cause it, or knows it is resulting from the conduct, or knows it is substantially certain to result.
- Equity may enjoin a continuing private nuisance when the interference is ongoing and substantial and monetary relief is inadequate.

## Conclusion

The court treated recurring refinery emissions that materially impaired neighboring residential and business use as potentially actionable intentional private nuisance even absent proof of negligent operation, allowed injunctive relief in proper circumstances, ordered a new trial as to the refinery operator due to instructional error, and removed the affiliated transportation company for lack of proof of responsibility.


Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co., 238 N.C. 185, 77 S.E.2d 682 (N.C. 1953)