Fendley v. City of Anaheim

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1930 No. Docket No. 169.Published

Before: Warmer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the operation of the city's machinery constituted a private nuisance because the resulting vibrations caused appreciable damage to the plaintiffs' property and interfered with their right to the comfortable use of their residences, regardless of the plant's skillful operation or the area's zoning.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the operation of the city's plant caused no damage or discomfort to the plaintiffs.
Whether the operation of a business under municipal zoning or skillful management justifies the creation of a private nuisance.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An owner of property must not use it even in a lawful business in such manner as to interfere with another in the legitimate use of his property.”

“The fact that the plant was properly installed and skilfully operated gives no right to the respondent to thus invade the rights of appellants.”

WARMER, J.,

pro tem.

The complaint, so far as pertinent here, alleges damage to the properties owned and occupied by the plaintiffs and damages for the personal discomfort of plaintiffs because of the vibrations, noises, shaking and

[733]

jarring of the residences of plaintiffs caused by the operating of a certain gas-engine, compressor and machinery of the defendants operated in the neighborhood of the residence of said plaintiffs.

The answer denies the damages, but admits the operation of said machinery; alleges that the plant is operated in what might b.e termed an industrial part of the said city; that said plant was necessary in the opinion of said city for the purpose of supplying light and power for said city; that said plant was constructed and operated in a skilful and reasonable manner.

The court found that the plant was properly constructed and installed, and skilfully operated; that the operation thereof caused vibrations of, and in, the residences of plaintiffs, but caused no damage to the properties, neither did said operation of said plant cause personal discomfort to the plaintiffs or any of them, and gave judgment for defendants. From this judgment plaintiffs appeal.

Appellants urge the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. In examining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a questioned finding, an appellate court must accept as true all evidence tending to establish the correctness of the finding as made, taking into account, as well, all inferences which might reasonably have been drawn by the trial court to lead to the same conclusion; and every substantial conflict in the testimony is to be resolved in favor of the finding.

(Bancroft-Whitney Co.

McHugh,

166 Cal. 140 [134 Pac. 1157].)

The evidence most favorable to respondents to sustain the questioned finding is as follows: First, that there were vibrations in the residences of the appellants to such an extent that. a bouquet of flowers on a dining-room table shook slightly; that a picture hanging on the wall of one of the residences shook slightly, such shaking was apparent by the changing reflections of the light on the picture; that the perfume in a small bottle placed on a dresser moved slightly on account of the vibrations; that the lace or fringe on the shades of a small floor lamp shook slightly ; that no vibrations were noticeable while standing on the floor of either house, but that, when a person leaned against the door or door-frame a vibration was noticeable; that some of respondents’ witnesses did not observe any vibration

Fendley v. City of Anaheim

AI Brief

WARMER, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief