Carpenter v. The Double R Cattle Company, Inc.
F: Carpenter was a homeowner in Idaho living near a cattle feedlot operated by The Double R Cattle Co. Carpenter alleged that Double R caused noxious odors, the pollution of river and ground water, insect infection, dust, and noise.
Px: Trial court found that the lot did not constitute a nuisance. Carpenter appealed. Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the trial court failed to give a jury instruction that the injured party could be compensated for the nuisance while allowing the harmful activity to continue. Idaho Supreme Court granted Double R's petition for review.
Q/P 1: Should the interests of the community and the utility of the conduct at issue be considered in determining the existence of a nuisance?
H: es. The interests of the community, including the utility of the conduct should be considered in determining the existence of a nuisance.
Reasoning: This state's economy depends heavily on the benefits of agriculture. To refuse to consider the utility of certain agricultural conduct would place an unreasonable burden on the agriculture industry.
Q/P 2: Should compensation be given to persons suffering from a continuing nuisance, allowing the interference to continue?
H: No. Compensation need not be given to persons suffering from a continuing nuisance. This would allow the business to continue and compensate the injured parties, but would unreasonably burden the person causing the nuisance.
Dissent: Bistline disagreed about compensation. It may be desirable to have a serious nuisance continue b/c of utility of operation, but those impacted deserve some compensation for the invasion they suffer. The agricultural interests should pay for any nuisance caused, and that should be considered part of the external costs of operating a feedlot in Idaho.