Case: Green v. Century Oak Wind Project, LLC
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
Date: December 12, 2024
Case Number: No. 11-23-00125-CV
Overview This case involves an appeal by landowners challenging the trial court's dismissal of their nuisance lawsuit against the developers of a wind turbine project on a neighboring property.
The trial court dismissed the case based on Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for dismissal of cases with no basis in law or fact. The Appellants claimed the wind farm constituted private and public nuisances. The appellate court partially reversed and remanded the case.
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the aesthetic-based nuisance claims (daytime and nighttime visual), and the common nuisance claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of the claims based on auditory, tactile and wildlife impacts, finding the Appellants' pleadings met the minimal requirements of a cause of action. These claims were remanded back to the trial court to be tried.
Significance: This case underscores strict limitations on nuisance claims, particularly aesthetic complaints, and the need for specific factual allegations to establish culpable conduct on the part of a defendant. The court noted that
III. Factual Background /Procedural History
- Appellants filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction and damages alleging the wind turbine project would create several nuisances, including visual nuisances (day and night), audible nuisances, tactile/vibrating nuisances and harm to wildlife.
- The wind turbines were to be located very close to the Appellants’ property, some as close as a "few hundred yards", with the project stretching “for miles.”
- Neither Plaintiffresided on the property in question, rather the properties were used for hunting, livestock, and farming.
- Appellees moved to dismiss under Rule 91a, arguing the claims lacked legal basis, primarily because they were aesthetic-based complaints or did not plead sufficient facts to prove culpability.
- The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the case entirely with prejudice.
Key Legal Principles
- Private Nuisance Law in Texas: The court reaffirmed that "nuisance" itself is not a separate cause of action, but rather a type of legal injury. Liability for a nuisance requires proving both the injury (substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land) and the culpability of the defendant's conduct (intentional or negligent).
- Interference must be more than a "trifle" or "petty annoyance". "Whether an interference is substantial or the effect is unreasonable requires a balancing of nonexclusive factors" including the location of the land, the neighborhood, the social utility of the property’s usage, etc.
- Aesthetic Nuisances: Texas law does not permit nuisance claims based solely on aesthetic concerns.
- Intentional Nuisance: A defendant intentionally causes a nuisance if the defendant "acts for the purpose of causing the interference or knows that [the interference] is resulting or is substantially certain to result from the defendant's conduct."
- Negligent Nuisance: Requires proof of “the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach.” The “unique element” of this claim is “that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused a nuisance, which in turn resulted in the plaintiff’s damages.”
- Prospective Damages: Monetary damages cannot be sought for a prospective nuisance, though equitable relief may be available.
Contact: Trey Wilson
San Antonio Real Estate Lawyer
210-223-4100
