## Facts

- Fifteen neighboring landowners in rural Gentry County, Missouri, lived on or owned property within several miles of a large-scale confined hog facility operated by ContiGroup-related entities.
- The facility used waste lagoons and land application of liquid manure as part of its operations.
- The landowners alleged recurrent offensive odors and airborne emissions from the facility that substantially interfered with ordinary use and enjoyment of their properties, including outdoor activities and opening windows.
- The landowners characterized the interference as a temporary nuisance because it depended on operating practices and could be abated.
- A larger set of plaintiffs initially filed nuisance actions; the trial court later grouped claims for trial by location and time period, placing these plaintiffs in the Gentry County trial group covering roughly 1999–2010.
- After a four-week jury trial, the jury found for the landowners on temporary nuisance and awarded compensatory damages: thirteen plaintiffs received $825,000 each, one received $250,000, and one received $75,000.
- The trial court entered an amended judgment and denied post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial; the defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether land used primarily as farm/business property can recover temporary-nuisance compensatory damages for loss of use and enjoyment without proof of separate economic loss to the business.
2. Whether the verdict-directing and damages instructions misstated Missouri temporary nuisance law or lacked evidentiary support.
3. Whether the compensatory damage awards were so excessive as to show bias, passion, or prejudice requiring remittitur or a new trial.
4. Whether asserted evidentiary and procedural errors warranted reversal.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held that Missouri law permits compensatory damages for loss of use and enjoyment of land even when the land is used as a farm or business, and such recovery does not require proof of profit loss.
- The court concluded the evidence was sufficient to submit temporary nuisance to the jury and to support the verdict.
- The court upheld the jury instructions as correctly stating the law and not misleading the jury.
- The court rejected the excessiveness challenge, finding the awards supported by evidence and not conclusive proof of bias, passion, or prejudice.
- The court found no reversible error in the remaining evidentiary and procedural complaints.

## Legal Principles

- Temporary nuisance protects the landowner’s interest in the use and enjoyment of property; compensable harm may include annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, and loss of use and enjoyment.
- Loss-of-use and enjoyment damages are not limited to residential property; farm or business property may recover such damages in a temporary nuisance action.
- A plaintiff may establish temporary nuisance damages based on substantial interference with use and enjoyment without separately proving business-profit loss.
- Appellate review of submissibility and JNOV views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and disregards contrary evidence.
- Jury instructions are upheld if they fairly submit the issues, correctly state the law, and do not mislead the jury.
- Damage awards are primarily for the jury and will not be disturbed absent a showing that the amount is manifestly unjust or demonstrates bias, passion, or prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed substantial temporary-nuisance verdicts against operators of an industrial hog facility, holding that Missouri allows recovery for loss of use and enjoyment of land—including farm or business property—without requiring proof of separate economic loss, and finding the evidence, instructions, and damages awards legally sustainable.


Owens v. ContiGroup Cos., Inc., 344 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)