Biglane, et al. v. Under the Hill Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01751-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-08-2007 Opinion Author: DIAZ, J. Holding: DIRECT APPEAL: REVERSED AND RENDERED. ON CROSS-APPEAL: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Private nuisance - Tortious interference with business relations Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, PJJ., EASLEY, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): RANDOLPH, J Concurs in Result Only: DICKINSON, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-22-2005 Appealed from: Adams County Chancery Court Judge: George Ward Disposition: Found Under the Hill a private nuisance to the Biglanes but found that the Biglanes tortiously interfered with the business relations of Under the Hill. Court awarded nominal damages to Biglanes Case Number: 2003-704 |
|
| Note: | Nuisance | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES M. BIGLANE AND NANCY K. BIGLANE |
JOHN G. CORLEW
VIRGINIA T. MUNFORD
BRUCE M. KUEHNLE, JR.
PHILIP ELMER CARBY |
||
| Appellee: | UNDER THE HILL CORPORATION | T. MACK BRABHAM |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Private nuisance - Tortious interference with business relations |
| Summary of the Facts: | Nancy and James Biglane filed a complaint against Under the Hill Corporation, which operated a saloon next door to the Biglane’s apartment, alleging private nuisance, among other causes of action. Under the Hill counterclaimed, alleging that the Biglanes had tortiously interfered in its business (by blocking the nearby parking lots) and defamed them (by sending a letter of complaint to the City Attorney). The chancellor determined that Under the Hill was a private nuisance to the Biglanes, and enjoined the Saloon from leaving open any doors or windows when music was playing, and ordered it to prevent patrons from loitering in the streets. The trial court also found that the Biglanes had tortiously interfered with the business relations of Under the Hill. Although no damages were actually shown, the trial court assessed nominal and punitive damages because of the intentional character of the conduct. The Biglanes filed a motion that the trial court reconsider its ruling regarding punitive damages. The court voided the award of punitive damages and set nominal damages at $500. The Biglanes appeal, and Under the Hill cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Private nuisance An entity is subject to liability for a private nuisance only when its conduct is a legal cause of an invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land and that invasion is either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional but otherwise provides the basis for a cause of action for negligent or reckless conduct or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. It is not necessary that other property owners should be driven from their dwellings, but it is enough that the enjoyment of life and property is rendered materially uncomfortable and annoying. In this case, the trial court exercised its power to permit continued operation the Saloon while setting conditions to its future operation. The court did not err in determining that the Saloon was a private nuisance to the Biglanes or in placing equitable conditions on its continued operation. Issue 2: Tortious interference with business relations The elements necessary to prove a claim of tortious interference with a business relationship include that the acts were intentional and willful, the acts were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful business, the acts were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant (which constitutes malice), and actual damage and loss. After the tensions escalated between the Biglanes and the Saloon, Mr. Biglane caused two parking areas in his control to be blocked. It is undisputed that Mr. Biglane controls one of the lots outright. Generally speaking, it cannot be malicious for a person to refuse access to others to their private property. Accordingly, blocking off the parking lot he owned in whole was not tortious conduct by Mr. Biglane. Mr. Biglane erected an iron gate blocking the other lot. The chancellor found that part of the property blocked by the iron gate was owned by the city; that the gate itself partially rested upon city property; and that two of the parking spaces blocked by Mr. Biglane were city property. In light of this evidence, the trial court found that the third factor required for tortious interference with business was present. Substantial evidence provided at trial and in the record supported the detailed and extensive findings of fact provided by the trial court. However, Under the Hill conceded that it could not demonstrate a loss of income from the lack of parking. In fact, business had slightly increased after the parking lots were blocked by Mr. Biglane. Nominal damages do not satisfy a finding of the tort of intentional interference with business relations. In this type of case, there must be actual damages. Because the fourth factor was not met, there cannot be a tortious interference with business and the award of nominal damages must be reversed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
