## Facts

- Page County Appliance Center, Inc., an appliance retailer in Shenandoah, Iowa, displayed televisions for sale and had no prior reception problems.
- In January 1980, a travel-service computer was installed at a nearby travel agency; the computer was manufactured, installed, and maintained by Honeywell, Inc., and leased through ITT Electronic Travel Services, Inc.
- Shortly after installation, the retailer experienced materially degraded television reception on two of three local channels, impairing its ability to display televisions to customers.
- The interference was traced to radiation leaking from the computer; Honeywell and ITT ultimately conceded causation.
- Honeywell made repeated service visits but determined the radiation was a design-related problem rather than a maintenance defect; reception improved somewhat but never returned to prior quality.
- The retailer sued Honeywell and ITT for private nuisance and tortious interference with business relations; ITT cross-claimed against Honeywell for indemnification.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit a private nuisance claim based on substantial and unreasonable interference from radiation emitted by a lawfully operated computer, even if defendants exercised significant care.
2. Whether the evidence supported tortious interference with business relations, including proof that defendants intended to interfere with the retailer’s business.
3. Whether the nuisance instructions correctly framed reasonableness and the effect of any abnormal sensitivity in the retailer’s use of its property.
4. Whether punitive damages and ITT’s indemnity judgment against Honeywell could stand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The nuisance claim was supported by sufficient evidence to reach a properly instructed jury.
- The tortious interference claim should not have been submitted because the record lacked substantial evidence of intent to interfere.
- Errors in nuisance instructions required a new trial, including inadequate guidance on reasonableness and the sensitivity of the plaintiff’s use.
- Punitive damages and ITT’s indemnity judgment could not stand as entered and were to be reconsidered on remand consistent with the court’s analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Private nuisance is an actionable interference with the private use and enjoyment of land; the core inquiry is whether the interference is substantial and unreasonable under the circumstances.
- Nuisance liability is not dependent on negligence; a defendant may be liable despite exercising the highest degree of care.
- The creator’s lack of intent to cause harm does not prevent a finding of nuisance.
- In evaluating reasonableness, the fact-finder may consider the character of the locality and the parties’ respective uses, including whether the plaintiff’s use is unusually sensitive; sensitivity is relevant but not automatically dispositive.
- Tortious interference with business relations requires intent to interfere; negligent or non-intentional conduct causing economic harm is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the nuisance instructions did not properly guide the jury’s reasonableness analysis, while also holding that nuisance may be found without negligence but tortious interference cannot be submitted absent substantial evidence of intentional interference.


Page Cnty. Appliance Ctr., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 171 (Iowa 1984)