Herrin v. Opatut

Facts

Opatut (D) purchased a 57-acre tract of 'pasture' land to establish an egg farm. Subsequently, 26 chicken layer houses were built and on March 15, 1979, 40,000 chickens were brought in. Ps, who were residents in the area filed suit against D alleging that they are 'plagued by flies and offensive odors' emanating from the farm. They also alleged that D was draining wastes from their egg farm into Ps' pond, with result that many of the fish are dying. P wanted D declared a nuisance and enjoined from further business activity. D filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Ps' claim is barred by Code Ann. §§ 72-107 and 72-108. 'It is the declared policy of the State to conserve and protect and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products. When nonagricultural land uses extend into agricultural areas, agricultural operations often become the subject of nuisance suits. As a result, agricultural operations are sometimes forced to cease operations. Many others are discouraged from making investments in farm improvements. It is the purpose of this law to reduce the loss to the State of its agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed to be a nuisance.' Code Ann. § 72-107 (Ga. L. 1980, p. 1253). 'No agricultural or farming operation, place, establishment, or facility, or any of its appurtenances, or the operation thereof, shall be or shall become a nuisance, either public or private, as a result of changed conditions in or around the locality of such agricultural or farming operation, place, establishment, or facility if such agricultural or farming operation, place, establishment, or facility has been in operation for one year or more.' Code Ann. § 72-108 (Ga. L. 1980, pp. 1253, 1254). That motion was granted, and P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.