Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner

Facts

Crosstex (D) owns and operates a natural-gas pipeline. D purchased a 20-acre tract along the pipeline's projected path to use as a storage yard during construction and as a prospective site for a compressor station. Andrew and Shannon Gardiner (Ps) own an undeveloped 95-acre ranch, and its southwest corner lies directly across a farm-to-market road from D's 20-acre tract. Ps purchased the ranch as an investment property and as a place to raise cattle, ride horses, and enjoy as a family until a future sale. D offered to purchase an easement to run the pipeline across the southwest corner of Ps' ranch. Ps ultimately agreed to sell the easement after D's agent increased the offer price and threatened condemnation proceedings. The agent did not mention that D had purchased the adjacent 20-acre tract as a possible site for a compressor station. Ps granted D an easement and right-of-way in January 2006. D decided to install a compressor station and based on area sound-level measurements, noise-mitigation measures were unnecessary. D installed 'hospital-grade' mufflers on the compressor-station engines, which are more effective in suppressing engine noise than 'regular-grade' mufflers but not as effective as 'critical or super-critical' mufflers. The compressor station includes four diesel engines that are each 'bigger than mobile homes.' At least one of the engines runs continuously all day and night. Ps' ranch was 'peaceful and quiet with 'just the usual country sounds.' D activated the compressor station and Ps and others began complaining about the station's 'constant roar.' The noise was as loud as a jet airplane or 'an engine of a locomotive sitting on the driveway.' D's own public relations specialist reported that a person standing near the road by the station would have to 'scream' to be heard, and she agreed that the noise was louder than it should have been and louder than D intended it to be. Ps and others demanded action from D. D hired a professional sound-control firm to conduct studies, and based on the firm's recommendations, began implementing a series of mitigation efforts. Over the next four years, D constructed a partially enclosed building around the engines (but not a fully enclosed building as the neighbors had demanded), installed sound blankets inside the building's walls, installed sound walls on three sides of the building, and planted vegetation around the building and walls. Ps complained that the walls merely funneled the noise toward their property. Ps filed this suit, asserting claims for private nuisance, ordinary negligence, and gross negligence. D continued its efforts to mitigate the noise. In December 2010, D's expert conducted another noise study and took recordings that he later played for the jury. Based on this study, the expert concluded that the noise in various locations around the station was either 'compatible' or 'marginally compatible' with neighboring agricultural land. D installed air intake silencers at the station. Two months later, it installed a fifteen-foot sound wall on the east side of the station, which faces Ps' ranch. Ps and others testified that the noise remained a constant and unacceptable roar. Ps claimed it interfered with their use and enjoyment of the ranch, and that D's expert's testimony that the noise was inaudible in some areas 'was not true.' Neighbors and other witnesses also testified that the noise remained extremely loud. Ps complained that the compressor station had greatly diminished their ranch's value and ruined both their financial investment and their ability to use and enjoy their land. The trial court directed a verdict for D on Ps' ordinary-negligence claim but agreed to submit the intentional-nuisance and negligent-nuisance claims to the jury. The jury found that D  'negligently' created a nuisance. The jury found that the nuisance was permanent, as opposed to temporary, and caused the ranch's fair market value to decline by over $2 million. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury's verdict for Ps on their negligent-nuisance claim. D appealed. The court of appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient but not factually sufficient to support the jury's finding of a negligently created nuisance. It held that the trial should have submitted a jury question on whether D created a nuisance through conduct that was 'abnormal and out of place.' The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case 'for a new trial. Both parties appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.