Facts
- Elbert Tyner and his wife owned and occupied four enclosed city lots in Greenfield, Indiana, used as their family residence and alleged to be worth about $4,000.
- People’s Gas Company constructed a natural-gas well about 1,000 feet deep on an adjacent lot roughly 200 feet from Tyner’s residence, separated by a 40-foot-wide public street.
- The company intended to “shoot” the well using nitroglycerin.
- Around midnight in August 1889, the company allegedly brought and permitted a large quantity of nitroglycerin (or similar explosive) to remain on the public street within less than 200 feet of Tyner’s residence for about three hours, while many people were nearby.
- Tyner alleged nitroglycerin was highly explosive, liable to explode at any time, and that the quantity contemplated could destroy life and property within a wide radius that would include his home.
- Tyner alleged the storing and intended use of nitroglycerin would endanger his family and damage his property above and below the surface.
- Tyner alleged that bringing nitroglycerin into and within the city violated a statutory prohibition.
Issues
- Whether a court of equity may enjoin the threatened use and temporary storage of large quantities of nitroglycerin to “shoot” a gas well in a populated city near a residence, before any explosion occurs.
- Whether an alleged statutory prohibition on bringing nitroglycerin into the city, combined with the danger posed, supports injunctive relief.
Decision
- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s injunction.
- The court treated the threatened storage and intended use of nitroglycerin in the stated quantity and location as a nuisance creating a grave, imminent danger to persons and property.
- The court held that legal damages after an accident would not provide an adequate remedy given the threatened catastrophic harm, including potential loss of life.
- The court concluded that the alleged statutory illegality of bringing nitroglycerin into the city supported preventive relief on these facts.
Legal Principles
- Equity may restrain a threatened nuisance when the contemplated conduct presents a near and extraordinary risk of serious injury and post-injury damages would not be plain, adequate, and complete.
- An injunction may issue to prevent irreparable harm from an ultra-hazardous activity even though the feared accident has not yet occurred.
- A statutory prohibition relevant to public safety may reinforce the unreasonableness of the threatened conduct and support injunctive relief when the plaintiff faces special danger to person or property.
Conclusion
The court upheld an injunction preventing a gas company from bringing, storing, or using nitroglycerin near a residence in a populated city, reasoning that the threatened conduct constituted an enjoinable nuisance posing imminent, irreparable danger and was strengthened by allegations of statutory violation.