GENERAL30353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~$ Colo. 601 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES Doan did not err in taking judicial notice of velocity o! wind in Boulder County during time period in question. & Nuisance 450(1) Award of damages in private nuisance action was not ezceasive. Norton Frickey b Amoriatea, Dan R'. Corson, Denver, for plaintiffsappelleea. Louie A. Morrone, Denver, for defendan4 appellant KELLY, Judge. Tina Marie Homes appeals the trial court's award of damages in an action by Richard and Peggy Lowder for private nui- sance. Tina Marie contends that the trial mart erred in finding that iU conduct amounted to intentional private nuisance interfering with the Lowdere' use and en- joyment of their property. It further ar- goes that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the velocty of the wind in Boulder County, and that the damages awarded by the trial mart were ezrevive R'e affirm. The Lowders owned property immediate- ly to the east of s vacant lot owned by Tina Marie Homes. In September 1979, the va- cant lot was scraped and leveled with hoary machinery, a process which removed all of the vegetation and left the soil in a loose and sand}• condition. Beginning in January 1974, and continuing through March 1975, a series of heavy windeWrms reused a sub etantisl amount of Boil to be blown from Tina Marie's vacant lot ceasing high dritu of dirt to be deposited on the Lowders' property. In making its findings, the trial mart took judirie] notice of the high winds in Boulder County omurring from October through Marr2t. The mart found that the wind-blown dirt unreasonably interfered with the Lowders' use and enjoyment of their property and caused them damage in the form of removal cosu, loss of enjoy- ment, and annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort The court also found that Tina Marie intentionally caused the scraping of the property to be aemmpluhed, that the injury was forrseeable, and that Tina Marie should have known the mneequenoee W fol- low. The court concluded that Tina Marie's conduct constituted a private nuieanae (1] to a private nuisance action, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of hie property. Miller v. Carna- tion Co., 99 Colo.App. CL, 616 PTd 661 (1979). Additionally, the interference which occurs must be substantial in mture in that it would be offensive or cause incon- venience or annoyance w e reaeoneble per- son in the community. Northwn2 Water Corp. v. Pennetta, 29 ColoApp. 1, d79 P2d 998 (1970). [2J Liability for nuisance may rest upon any one of three types o! conduct: an in- tentional invasion of a person's interest; s negligent invasion of a penon'e interest; or, conduct w dangerous to life or property and so abnormal or outo!-place in its eur- roundinge ae to fall within the principles of strict liability. Baughman v. Cooler, 169 Colo. 594, 459 P2d 29d (1969). Tina Marie argues that the trial mart found that its conduct constituted an inuntional invasion of the plaintiffs' interesu and rejected the remaining two thmries of nuisance. We disagree. [9] The trial court held that the defend- ant's conduct was "intentional in that they reused the soaping of their property w be accomplished, and they should have known the consequences to follow from that scrap- ing." The mart did not ind, however, that the defendant intentionalh• inurfered with the plaintiffs' interesU, but rather, that the defendant should have known the conee- quenoes to follow from the intentional scraping of iu land. Thus, the court predi- nted liability on a negligence theory of nvinance arising out of a failure to take precautions against a risk apparent W a reasonable person. See W. Prosser, Torts § 87 (4th ed.). [4] Tina Marie further argues that the consequences of the action of the scraping