## Facts

- Michael and Judith Varjabedian owned and lived on an approximately 80-acre vineyard in Madera County with their three children.
- The City of Madera began operating a sewage treatment plant about 600 feet from plaintiffs’ residence in 1972.
- The plant emitted recurring noxious odors that prevailing winds carried onto plaintiffs’ property; plaintiffs noticed septic smells soon after operations began.
- Plaintiffs repeatedly complained to city officials and were told corrective measures would be taken and the plant would become odor-free; Michael Varjabedian kept a log of odor episodes and complaint efforts.
- In July 1973, plaintiffs sued the City alleging negligence, nuisance, dangerous condition of public property, and inverse condemnation, seeking damages for interference with use and value of their property.
- At trial, plaintiffs dismissed negligence and dangerous-condition claims; the court let nuisance go to the jury but granted the City judgment on the pleadings on inverse condemnation.
- The jury found for plaintiffs on nuisance and awarded approximately $73,000 in damages.
- The City appealed the nuisance judgment; plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of inverse condemnation.

## Issues

1. Whether statutory authorization to construct and operate a sewage treatment plant bars nuisance liability for odors interfering with neighboring property.
2. Whether the trial court’s nuisance-damages instruction for a “permanent nuisance” improperly allowed recovery for diminution in value beyond harm attributable to the odors, and whether any error required reversal.
3. Whether recurring offensive odors, absent physical invasion or structural damage, can constitute a compensable “taking or damaging” supporting inverse condemnation, making judgment on the pleadings improper.

## Decision

- The nuisance judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed.
- The trial court erred in instructing on the measure of damages for permanent nuisance, but the error was not prejudicial given the evidence focused on odor-related diminution in value.
- Statutory authorization to operate the sewage plant did not immunize the City from nuisance liability for the manner and effects of its operation.
- The judgment on the pleadings dismissing inverse condemnation was reversed; plaintiffs stated a viable inverse condemnation claim based on recurring odors substantially impairing use and value.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on inverse condemnation.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory authorization to build or operate a public facility does not automatically bar nuisance liability where operation unreasonably interferes with neighboring property.
- For permanent nuisance, diminution-in-value damages must be tied to the harm caused by the nuisance itself, not the entire effect of the project’s existence; instructional overbreadth can be harmless if the record shows the award rested on nuisance-related harms.
- Inverse condemnation under California’s “taken or damaged” clause does not invariably require physical invasion or structural injury; recurring, substantial, nonphysical intrusions such as noxious odors may constitute compensable “damaging” if they materially impair use and value for public benefit.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the nuisance verdict against the City despite the plant’s statutory authorization, found the damages instruction erroneous but harmless, and held that recurring sewage odors can support inverse condemnation even without physical damage, requiring reinstatement of that claim.


Varjabedian v. City of Madera, 20 Cal. 3d 285 (1977)