GENERAL30353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

`I u, mpleted their and argument er licensee had vte and regula- apeeific fmdwgs asee had, in fact, Iduct He then ue of any prior f was informed, June 1974 the ad imposed a 3- xnaee for allow- ing machines on a representative roue argued that zld be imposed, asserted that s e more appropri- 30~1ay suspen- d that licensee's us matter," that Is matter all the ;ht "there is a ' The licensee submitted to the his conclusion city." We dis- ie testimony of ho testi£ed that rash and partly at another bar, im W use those g machine; that licensee's man• bartender told as also waiting cony, combined previous auspen• „ was suffirjeni rnnce that licen- rn" of allowing concur. 1.ABBE v. STEFFENS Colo. 1067 Clu r 7S1 -]d Ip7 ICeln~yy. IMq The Law Firm of Melat d Pressman, Manuel LABBE and Gloria I.abbe, Glenn S. Pressman, Colorado Springs, for Plaintiffs-Appellees, plaintiffs-appellees. v. Louie A. STEFFENS, DetendantrAppellant Holland and Hart, Gregory R. Piehe, Denver, Terence P. Fagan, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellant No. BSCA0734. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III. Feb. 4, 1988. Operator of car wash appealed from order of the District Court, EI Peso Coun- ty, Hunter D. Hardeman, J., which adjoined operation of the ear wash as a nuisance. The Court of Appeals, Sternberg, J., held that: (1) evidence sustained determination that taz wash was a nuisance, and (2) it was proper to.award damages for period of time prnor to adjacent landowners first complaint about the operation. Affirmed. 1. Nuisance X33 finding that car wash was a nuisance was supported by evidence that it was op- etated on a 24-hour basis immediately ad- jacent to residences, that lazge diesel trucks used it, that engines would idle for periods of one hour or more and would emit obnoxious fumes, and that owners of automobiles would operate their radios loudly while in the drying area adjacent to the residential property. 2. Nuisance 4050(1) Plaintiffs were entitled w award of damages for period prior to their eom- Plaints about operation of car wash, which was enjoined as a nuisance, where eaz wash had been operated adjacent to resi- dential property oa a 24-hour basis during which tune large diesel weks would idle for a period of one hour or more and auto mobile owners would operate their radios loudly while in the drying area STERNBERG, Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court finding that the manner in which the defendant operated a ear wash bu~i- ness caused damages to the plaintiffs who were the owners of property adjoining the car wash. The trial court also entered an injunction; however, following the trial of this ease, the plaintiffs sold then property and by agreement of the parties and the purchaser of plaintiffs' property, the in- junction was dissolved. We affirm. ~[ll We find no merit in defendant's con- tention that the trial court erroneously de- termined the car wash to be a nuisance. There was evidence in the rernrd sufficient to support this finding and conclusion; thus, it may not be overturned on review. See Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306, 592 P.2d 792 (1979); Allison v. Smith, 695 P.2d 791 (Colo.App.1984). See also Jaeus, Colorado Common Lain Aciioas to Abate the Mis• handling of Hazardous Materials, I6 Colo.Iawyer 2191, (December 1987). Relying on Baughman v. Cosier, 169 Colo. 534, 459 P.2d 294 (1969), the defend- antchallenges the award of damages to the plaintiffs for the period beginning in 1980 and extending until they first complained about the ear wash. The defendant con- tends that, before a plaintiff can receive damages in a nuisance action, the defend- ant must have notice of the tronduet which constitutes the nuisance. Since the first complaint of damages from the operation of the car wash was received N 1983, the defendant asserts that damages cannot be awarded for the period prior to that time. We disagree with defendant In Baughman, a leak from an abea- doned underground butane gas line result-