PJC General Negligence 2022

N UISANCE

PJC 12.2

unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities attempting to use and enjoy it. Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. , 505 S.W.3d at 599–600, 606 (quoting Holubec v. Brandenberger , 111 S.W.3d 32, 37 (Tex. 2003)); Barnes , 353 S.W.3d at 763; Schneider National Carriers, Inc. , 147 S.W.3d at 269. Whether a defen dant may be held liable for causing a nuisance depends on the culpability of the defen dant’s conduct, in addition to proof that the interference is a nuisance. There must be some level of culpability on behalf of the defendant. Nuisance cannot be premised on mere accidental interference with the use and enjoyment of land but only on such interferences that are caused by negligent, intentional, or abnormally dangerous con duct that is also out of place in its surroundings. Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. , 505 S.W.3d at 588, 604 (retaining the three categories); City of Tyler v. Likes , 962 S.W.2d 489, 503 (Tex. 1997). Interference with use and enjoyment. According to the supreme court: The determination of whether a defendant’s interference with a plain tiff’s use and enjoyment of land is substantial or whether any particular effect of that interference is unreasonable requires consideration and bal ancing of a multitude of factors, depending on the circumstances of the case at hand. These include, among others: —the character and nature of the neighborhood, each party’s land usage, and social expectations; —the location of each party’s land and the nature of that locality; —the extent to which others in the vicinity are engaging in similar con duct in the use of their land; —the social utility of each property’s usage; —the tendency or likelihood that the defendant’s conduct will cause interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of their land; —the magnitude, extent, degree, frequency, or duration of the interfer ence and resulting harm; —the relative capacity of each party to bear the burden of ceasing or mitigating the usage of their land; —the timing of each party’s conduct or usage that creates the conflict;

—the defendant’s motive in causing the interference; and —the interests of the community and the public at large.

Whether an interference is substantial or the effects of the interference unreasonable in any given case necessarily depends on these and poten tially other factors. All of these factors must be “thrown into the scale,” and

183