## Facts

- Gary and Eileen Smith owned and lived in a single-family home in Brick, New Jersey, with their three young children.
- Their backyard included typical family amenities, including a patio, swing set, sandbox, above-ground pool with metal ladders, and a hot tub.
- In July 2002, Gary Smith, while barefoot, felt electrical shocks when he touched the hot tub water; the next day he experienced an even stronger shock.
- Eileen Smith later experienced a tingling/buzzing shock sensation when she took off her shoes and touched the hot tub water.
- The Smiths hired an electrician, who detected high levels of electricity in the ground near the hot tub and swing set and determined the source was not inside the house.
- The Smiths contacted Jersey Central Power & Light Co. (JCP&L). After testing, JCP&L concluded the source was its electrical distribution system, specifically neutral-to-earth voltage (NEV), also called “stray voltage” or “stray current,” traveling through the ground.
- JCP&L attempted over a period of years to correct the NEV condition but was unable to eliminate it; a JCP&L investigator advised the Smiths to wear shoes outdoors and avoid contact with metal objects or wet clothing outside.
- Concerned about safety, the Smiths stopped using the backyard, removed or dismantled backyard structures (including the pool and swing set), and changed daily habits (including wearing shoes inside and outside).
- The Smiths spent about $29,400 to install a second-story fiberglass deck so their children could play outside without contacting the ground.
- A consultant retained by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities described the neighborhood stray-current problem as complex and requiring a network-wide solution.
- The Smiths sued JCP&L (and a related entity) asserting claims that included private nuisance and inverse condemnation (takings).
- A jury found JCP&L not negligent but found it liable for nuisance and awarded $145,000 for property damage and $50,000 for interference with use and enjoyment of the property.
- The trial court dismissed the inverse condemnation claim and denied the Smiths’ request for certain taxed costs. The Smiths appealed, and JCP&L cross-appealed alleging trial errors related to the nuisance verdict and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether persistent NEV/stray voltage from a utility’s distribution network, which substantially interfered with residential use of a backyard, constituted a compensable taking supporting an inverse condemnation claim.
2. Whether the nuisance verdict and the awards for property damage and interference with use were supported by the evidence and free of reversible trial error.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Smiths’ request for certain taxed costs.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment in all respects.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the inverse condemnation claim, concluding the NEV condition—though serious—did not meet the standard for a constitutional taking and was properly addressed through nuisance damages.
- The court rejected JCP&L’s cross-appeal arguments alleging trial errors and upheld the jury’s nuisance verdict and damages awards.
- The court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Smiths’ claim for additional taxed costs.

## Legal Principles

- A private nuisance may be found where a defendant’s conduct results in a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land, and damages may be awarded for both property-related harm and loss of use/enjoyment.
- Liability for nuisance can be imposed based on the existence and effects of the interfering condition even when a jury does not find negligence under a fault-based theory, depending on how the nuisance claim is tried and charged.
- Inverse condemnation requires a showing that governmental action (or action by an entity exercising delegated public power) amounts to a taking of private property, such as a permanent physical occupation or the functional equivalent of an appropriation of property rights; serious interference alone does not automatically satisfy that standard.
- Appellate review of a civil verdict focuses on whether the record supports the jury’s findings and whether any claimed trial errors were capable of producing an unjust result.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment holding JCP&L liable in nuisance for stray-voltage conditions that caused shocks and substantially interfered with the Smiths’ residential use of their backyard, while also affirming dismissal of the Smiths’ inverse condemnation claim because the interference, though significant, did not constitute a constitutional taking and was adequately remedied through nuisance damages.


Smith v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 24 A.3d 300 (2011)