Gevelaar v. Millennium Inorganic Chemicals

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 11th District Court of Appeals » 2013 » Gevelaar v. Millennium Inorganic Chemicals

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2013-Ohio-435

Case Date: 02/08/2013

Plaintiff: Gevelaar

Defendant: Millennium Inorganic Chemicals

Preview:[Cite as Gevelaar v. Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, 2013-Ohio-435.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
ANTOON GEVELAAR, SR., et al.,                                                                   :   O P I N I O N
Plaintiffs-Appellants,                                                                          :
                                                                                                    CASE NO. 2012-A-0013
- vs -                                                                                          :
MILLENNIUM INORGANIC                                                                            :
CHEMICALS, et al.,
:
Defendant-Appellee.
Civil Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2010 CV
1020.
Judgment: Affirmed.
L. Bryan Carr, Carr, Feneli & Carbone Co., L.P.A., 1392 S.O.M. Center Road, Mayfield
Heights, OH   44124 (For Plaintiffs-Appellants).
Jon L. Lindberg and Stuart W. Cordell, Warren and Young, P.L.L.,  134 West  46th
Street, P.O. Box 2300, Ashtabula, OH   44005-2300 (For Defendant-Appellee).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1}   This appeal is before us on the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas, which overruled appellee-Millennium Inorganic Chemicals’ motion for a
directed  verdict  on  the  claim  of  appellant-Antoon  Gevelaar,  Sr.;  granted  appellee’s
motion  for  a  directed  verdict  on  the  claim  of  appellant-Antoon  Gevelaar,  Jr.;  and
rendered judgment in favor of appellee on the jury’s general verdict.   Appellants ask that

this court reverse the jury’s verdict and remand the matter to the trial court due to
several errors of law that occurred at trial.   For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
{¶2}   Appellee is a chemical manufacturer that has been located in Ashtabula,
Ohio for approximately 50 years.   It conducts its processes 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.   Beginning in the early 1990’s, Gevelaar, Sr. began purchasing undeveloped real
estate on Tillotson Road  (“Tillotson Properties”), which is located approximately one
mile from appellee’s place of business.   Appellants intended to develop and market the
Tillotson Properties as single family homes.
{¶3}   In approximately 1998, Gevelaar, Jr. moved into a construction trailer on
one of the parcels, but did not own any portion of the Tillotson properties and was not
paying rent to his father.   He simply resided there.   Appellants both testified that from
1998 until 2006, there was no noise of any kind emanating from appellee’s plant.
{¶4}   In 2006, appellants sold their first home to Helen English.   At the time of
the sale, appellants claimed that there was no noise emanating from appellee’s plant.
Ms. English testified that prior to her purchase of the property, she visited the area
numerous times and never heard any noise emanating from appellee’s plant.   However,
shortly after the sale, appellants and Ms. English began to hear a constant humming
noise and regular steam blasts coming from appellee’s plant.   The humming noise was
characterized as similar to a hissing, whirring, or electric bulb.   The steam blasts were
likened unto jet airplanes.
{¶5}   Ms. English and appellants made multiple complaints to appellee from the
years 2006 to 2010.   One other local resident also complained about the noise.   At all
times, appellee quickly responded to the complaints and made diligent efforts to identify
2

the source and eliminate the problem.   Several representatives of appellee as well as
Ryan Whitmire, the Ashtabula Zoning Inspector, visited appellants and Ms. English at
the Tillotson Properties in an effort to hear the noise and discuss the problem.   Certain
of appellee’s employees admitted in emails between one another that the humming
noise was coming from appellee’s plant.   However, they were unable to pinpoint the
cause or fix the problem.    Gevelaar, Jr. testified that he did not think appellee was
purposely trying to create a nuisance.   Mr. Whitmire testified that appellee was not in
violation of any city ordinances.
{¶6}   Appellee’s  Safety,  Health,  and  Environmental  Technician,  Gail  Wright,
testified that she conducted a noise study, and that the noise at appellants’ property
reached  60  decibels,  which  is  the  equivalent  of  normal  conversation  or  that  of  a
typewriter.    She  acknowledged  hearing  the  hum  herself  upon  visiting  the  Tillotson
Properties, but did not record in her report that she attributed it to the nearby power
lines or railroad track.   Regarding the steam blasts, several representatives of appellee
testified that the steam blasts were a necessary safety measure scheduled to occur at
least every eight weeks as part of appellee’s planned “shutdown” for depressurization,
and that the steam blasts could not be eliminated.   The steam blasts typically last three
to four hours at a time.   As a result of the noise, appellants abandoned their intentions
to develop the property as a residential area.
{¶7}   On September 21, 2010, appellants filed their complaint against appellee,
alleging that it was conducting its manufacturing process in such a way as to constitute
a nuisance.    Appellants claimed various damages, including, but not limited to, lost
profits, loss of marketability of property, discomfort, and annoyance.    In addition to
3

damages, appellants sought an injunction requiring appellee to abate the nuisance, as
well as interest and attorney’s fees.
{¶8}   Following discovery, the matter was considered on summary judgment,
which the trial court denied.   A trial commenced in February 2012.   At the close of the
case, the trial court granted appellee a partial directed verdict on the claims of Gevelaar,
Jr., but denied appellee’s motion for a directed verdict against Gevelaar, Sr.   The jury
rendered a verdict in favor of appellee.   This timely appeal followed and appellants raise
three assignment of error for our review:
{¶9}                                                                                           “[1.] The trial court erred in its instructions to the jury with regard to the law
of nuisance.
{¶10}                                                                                          “[2.] The trial court erred in granting the appellee’s motion for directed
verdict as to the claims of Antoon Gevelaar, Jr.
{¶11}                                                                                          “[3.] The trial court erred in refusing to permit a recording made by one of
the appellants’ witness to be played for the jury.”
{¶12}  In their first assignment, appellants maintain that the trial court’s refusal to
instruct the jury as to absolute, or intentional, nuisance pursuant to Ohio Jury Instruction
(“OJI”) 621.01 and 621.05 constitutes error. Appellants’ proposed instructions requested
absolute nuisance instructions.   Instead, the court instructed the jury as to qualified, or
negligent, nuisance pursuant to OJI 621.07.   For the reasons that follow we agree that
the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to absolute nuisance constituted error.
However, the error was nonprejudicial.
{¶13}  In determining the appropriateness of jury instructions, an appellate court
reviews the instructions as a whole.   Chambers v. Admr., Bureau. of Workers’ Comp.,
4

164  Ohio App.3d  397,  2005-Ohio-6086,  ¶15  (9th Dist.).    We acknowledge that the
giving of jury instructions is often examined under an abuse of discretion standard,
which gives some deference to the trial court.   However, it is important to note that the
current working definition of abuse of discretion is “the trial court’s ‘failure to exercise
sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’   State v. Beechler, 2d Dist. No 09-CA-
54, 2010 Ohio 1900, ¶62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8 Ed. Rev. 2004) 11.”   Sertz
v. Sertz, 11th Dist. No. 2011-L-063, 2012-Ohio-2120, ¶31.   “[W]hen an appellate court is
reviewing a pure issue of law, ‘the mere fact that the reviewing court would decide the
issue differently is enough to find error.’”   Id.
{¶14}  With respect to the giving of jury instructions, the Fifth Appellate District
correctly followed this principle by stating as follows:
{¶15}                                                                                           “‘[A] trial court must fully and completely give the jury all instructions which
are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh the evidence and discharge its duty as
the fact finder.’                                                                               * * *   If a requested instruction contain[s] a correct, pertinent statement
of the law and is appropriate to the facts, the instruction must be included, at least in
substance.                                                                                      ‘In reviewing a record to ascertain the presence of sufficient evidence
to support the giving of an  (  *  *  *  ) instruction, an appellate court should determine
whether the record contains evidence from which reasonable minds might reach the
conclusion sought by the instruction.’                                                          * * * ”   State v. Tapp, 5th Dist. No. 2006-CAA-
090058, 2007-Ohio-2959, ¶54.
{¶16}  So, in other words, when the facts and evidence in a case support the
requested instruction, and the instruction is a correct statement of the law, the court
may not refuse to give the instruction.   However, a trial court’s failure to give a proposed
5

jury instruction is reversible error only if the party demonstrates that it was prejudiced by
the trial court’s refusal to give the proposed instruction.   Nails v. Perrin Asphalt, 9th Dist.
No. C.A. 07CA0010-M, 2007-Ohio-6147, ¶13.   In this case, appellants are unable to
show prejudice by the trial court’s failure to give an absolute nuisance instruction.
{¶17}  In  Ohio,  “[t]he  term  ‘nuisance’  designates  a  distinct  tort,  consisting  of
anything wrongfully done or permitted that unreasonably interferes with another in the
enjoyment of his property.                                                                         ‘It comprehends not only the wrongful invasion of the
use and enjoyment of property, but also the wrongful invasion of personal legal rights
and privileges generally.’                                                                         * * *   To maintain an action for nuisance, there must be a real,
material, and substantial injury.                                                                  ‘Damages for nuisance may include diminution in
the value of the property, costs of repairs, loss of use of the property, and compensation
for annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience.’”   Natale v. Everflow Eastern, Inc., 195
Ohio App.3d 270, 2011-Ohio-4304, ¶20 (11th Dist.).
                                                                                                                                                                                     {¶18}                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           “Nuisances are classified as absolute nuisances or qualified nuisances.
*                                                                                                  *                                                                             *                                                                                                                                                                                                 ‘An absolute nuisance, or nuisance per se, consists of  [1.] an intentional act
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     resulting in harm;  [2.] an act involving  (*  *  *) unlawful conduct causing unintentional
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     harm, or [3.] a non-culpable act resulting in accidental harm, for which, because of the
                                                                                                                                                                                             hazards involved, absolute liability attaches notwithstanding the absence of fault.’”
Id. at ¶21.
{¶19}                                                                                              “In contrast, ‘[a] qualified nuisance, or nuisance dependent on negligence,
consists of an act lawfully but so negligently ( * * * ) done as to create [an] unreasonable
risk of harm, which in due course results in injury to another.’”   Id. at ¶22.   Nonetheless,
the common element between the classification of “absolute nuisance” and “qualified
6

nuisance” is the existence of a nuisance, i.e. “a real, material and substantial injury.”   Id.
at ¶20.
{¶20}                                                                                             “‘[T]he distinction between  “absolute” and  “qualified” nuisance depends
upon the conduct of the defendant’.                                                               * * * [A]n ‘absolute nuisance’ requires intentional
conduct on the part of the defendant[.] * * *                                                     ‘Intentional,’ in this context, means ‘not that
a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended but that the creator of [it] intended
to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance.’”   Angerman v.
Burick, 9th Dist. No. 02CA0028, 2003-Ohio-1469, ¶10.
{¶21}  In applying that doctrine to the facts before it, the Angerman court stated
that “[t]here is no question here that the [defendants] intentionally * * * created a great
deal of noise.    Even if they did not intend to generate noise, it apparently was an
unavoidable byproduct of their intentional activity.”   Id. at ¶11.
{¶22}  In other words, the terms  “intentional act” do not refer to the nuisance
itself, but to the conduct which gives rise to the interference.                                  “‘Where the harm and
resulting damage are the necessary consequences of just what the defendant is doing,
or is incident to the activity itself or the manner in which it is conducted, the law of
negligence has no application and the rule of absolute liability applies.’”   Id. at ¶13.
{¶23}  In  the  instant  case,  the  trial  court  rejected  appellants’  request  for  an
absolute nuisance instruction.   Instead, the jury was given the standard OJI “qualified
nuisance” charge.    When this charge is compared with the standard OJI  “absolute
nuisance - intentional acts” charge it is readily apparent that other than the element of
intentional conduct versus negligent conduct, the “proof of claim” is the same - the jury
must find by the greater weight of the evidence that the conduct caused “annoyance,
7

injury,                                                                                          [or] inconvenience to,  [or]  “endangered the comfort, health,  [or] safety of the
plaintiff.”   Put another way, there must be proof of injury, i.e., that a nuisance exists and
that the nuisance was created or caused by the defendant.
{¶24}  We agree with appellants that the trial court erred as a matter of law in
refusing to instruct the jury as to absolute nuisance.   The evidence presented supports
giving the absolute nuisance instruction.   There was evidence that appellee’s activity of
manufacturing  and  the  manner  in  which  that  process  is  conducted  generates  a
humming  noise  and  loud  steam  blasts  as  an  apparent  byproduct  of  that  activity,
regardless of the genuine, sincere attempts appellee has made to address appellants’
complaints.   Furthermore, based on the evidence, it does not appear that it is possible
to eliminate either the humming or steam blasts.
{¶25}  Nevertheless, the trial court gave the following instruction:                             “In deciding
whether a nuisance exists, you may consider, among other factors, the nature of the
injury, frequency of the disturbance, the character of the neighborhood, and the past
actions taken by the defendant to reduce the disturbance.    You must consider the
comfort and convenience of persons of ordinary tastes and sensibilities.   You must be
guided by the generally accepted standard of comfort and convenience.   Trifling and
insignificant  annoyances  or  inconvenience  do  not  constitute  nuisance.    Likewise,
unsubstantiated or unrealized fears do not constitute nuisance.   Nuisance is a question
of degree, depending upon varying circumstances.”
{¶26}  This  is  an  appropriate  instruction  to  be  given  in  either  an                     “absolute
nuisance - intentional acts” or a qualified nuisance case.   OJI 621.05 and 0JI 621.07.
8

Moreover, the above instruction makes it clear that the term “nuisance” encompasses
the concept of injury to the plaintiff.
{¶27}  The following interrogatory was presented to the jury:                                     “Do you find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of the defendant, Millenium Organic
Chemicals, has created a nuisance?”   The jury’s unanimous response was, “no.”
{¶28}  The interrogatory, as drafted, is a compound question testing two aspects
of appellants’ burden of proof, whether a nuisance exists i.e., injury occurred, and if a
nuisance  exists,  whether  appellee  created  it.    In  answering  this  question,  the  jury
concluded either that:  (1) a nuisance is present but appellee did not create it or  (2)
whatever  appellee  created  amounts  to  a  trifling  or  insignificant  annoyance  or
inconvenience  not  constituting  nuisance.                                                       As  the  answer  to  the  interrogatory
demonstrates a failure in appellants’ proof independent of whether appellee’s conduct
was intentional or negligent, appellants fail to show prejudice.   Their first assignment is
without merit.
{¶29}  Under appellants’ second assignment of error, they assert that the trial
court erred in granting appellee’s motion for a directed verdict as to the claims of
Gevelaar, Jr. based on lack of standing.  We disagree.
{¶30}  Appellants rest their argument on the fact that Gevelaar, Jr. lived on the
Tillotson Properties and testified as to how the noise from appellee’s plant affected his
life and caused him physical discomfort.   The basis of the trial court’s decision to grant
appellee’s motion for a directed verdict was that Gevelaar, Jr. had no ownership or
leasehold interest in the property, and thus, no legal rights to the property.   The property
was owned by Gevelaar, Sr., who allowed his son to reside there rent-free.
9

{¶31}  It   is   well-settled   that   a  private   nuisance   involves   anything  that
unreasonably  interferes  with  another  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  property.                   (Emphasis
added.)   Natale, 2011-Ohio-4304, at ¶20, citing Taylor v. Cincinnati, 143 Ohio St. 426,
436 (1944).   Thus, a nuisance action exists to remedy an injury to someone’s property.
Accordingly,  Gevelaar,  Jr.  cannot  pursue  a  nuisance  action  to  recover  for  alleged
damage to property he does not own or rent.
{¶32}  Appellants’ second assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶33}  Turning to appellants’ third assignment of error, they allege that the trial
court abused its discretion in refusing to permit the introduction of a tape recording
made by Helen English of the noise at issue.   They contend that the jury’s hearing of the
tape would have permitted the jury to understand the noise emanating from appellee’s
facility.   Again, we reject appellants’ argument.
{¶34}  The recording at issue was introduced for the first time on the morning of
the second day of trial.   Ms. English testified that she made the recording the day before
trial commenced.   The record shows that during discovery, appellee specifically asked
appellants to provide it with any exhibits appellants intended to utilize at trial.   The trial
court set a discovery deadline of May 31, 2011.   Appellee also requested copies of any
noise  studies  or  evidence  reflecting  the  noise  of  which  appellants  complained.
However, the proposed recording appears nowhere on appellants’ exhibit list.
{¶35}  Essentially,  appellee  contends  that  the  proposed  introduction  of  this
recording would have constituted unfair surprise and prejudiced its case since it was not
produced during discovery so that its counsel was permitted to hear it before it was
played in open court.   We agree.
10

{¶36}                                                                                           “‘One  of  the  purposes  of  the  Rules  of  Civil  Procedure  is  to  eliminate
surprise.   This is accomplished by way of a discovery procedure which mandates a free
flow of accessible information between the parties upon request * * *.’”   Huffman v. Hair
Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 85 (1985), citing Jones v. Murphy, 12 Ohio St.3d 84,
86 (1984).   Ohio courts have routinely excluded evidence offered at the “eleventh hour.”
See, e.g.,  Huffman  (expert  testimony proffered five  days  prior to  trial date held  to
constitute unfair surprise); United States Bank v. Amir, 8th Dist. No. 97438, 2012-Ohio-
2772, ¶22 (admission of county’s valuation of property, which had not been disclosed
prior to trial, would have constituted unfair surprise and prejudiced the opposing party).
{¶37}  Here, appellants began to complain of the noise at issue for nearly three
years prior to trial.   At any time during that three year period preceding trial, they could
have made a recording of the alleged noise, produced it during discovery and entered it
into evidence.   Yet, they did not do so.   Instead, they waited to make the recording after
trial commenced without permitting appellee’s counsel an opportunity to hear it first.
{¶38}  Accordingly,  the  trial  court  did  not  err  in  excluding  this  recording.
Appellants’ third assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶39}  For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, it is the judgment and
order of this court that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concurs,
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concurs in judgment only, with a Concurring Opinion.
11

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concurs in judgment only, with a Concurring Opinion.
{¶40}  Although  I  concur  in  the  judgment  of  the  court,  the  majority  opinion
includes dicta which distorts the distinction between absolute and qualified nuisance.
Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment of the court.
{¶41}  The majority properly concludes, based on the jury interrogatory, that the
plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove their case under either a theory of absolute nuisance
or  qualified  nuisance.    Thus,  it  is  not  necessary  to  decide  whether  the  plaintiffs-
appellants  were  entitled  to  a  jury  instruction  for  absolute  nuisance.    The  majority,
nonetheless, conducts such an analysis.
{¶42}  The majority concludes that the plaintiffs-appellants were entitled to an
instruction on “absolute nuisance,” based on defendant-appellee’s intentional “activity of
manufacturing and the manner in which that process is conducted.”   Supra at ¶ 25.   I
disagree.   In order to qualify as an absolute nuisance, defendant-appellee must cause
“harm  and  resulting  damage,”  which  “are  the  necessary  consequences  of  just  the
defendant is doing, or *  *  * incident to the activity itself or the manner in which it is
conducted.”                                                                                        (Citation omitted.)   Jennings Buick, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 56 Ohio St.2d 459,
465, 384 N.E.2d 303 (1978).
{¶43}  In the present case, there was no evidence that the alleged harm, i.e.,
excessive noise, was a necessary consequence of, or incident to, the operation of
defendant-appellee’s manufacturing facility.   In fact, the evidence is undisputed that,
from  1998 to  2006,  “there was no noise of any kind emanating from the Appellee’s
plant.”   Appellants’ brief at 2.   Where the defendant is not engaging in an activity that
constitutes a nuisance per se, it is inappropriate to impose strict or absolute liability on
12

that activity.    Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,  87 Ohio App.3d  704,  713,  622
N.E.2d 1153 (4th Dist.1993) (the “essence” of absolute nuisance “is that no matter how
careful one is, such activities are inherently injurious and cannot be conducted without
damaging someone else’s property or rights”).
{¶44}  The majority justifies the imposition of such liability based solely on the
fact  that  defendant-appellee’s  conduct  is  intentional.    To  qualify  as  an  absolute
nuisance, however, the conduct must be “culpable and intentional.”   Interstate Sash &
Door Co. v. Cleveland, 148 Ohio St. 325, 74 N.E.2d 239 (1947), paragraph one of the
syllabus.   Under the majority’s application of the law, every type of nuisance potentially
qualifies as an absolute nuisance, since even a qualified nuisance consists of some
intentional  act                                                                               “so  negligently  or  carelessly  done  as  to  create  potential  and
unreasonable risk of harm.”   Metzger v. Pennsylvania, Ohio & Detroit RR. Co., 146 Ohio
St. 406, 66 N.E.2d 203 (1946), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶45}  For the foregoing reasons, I concur, in judgment only, with the decision to
affirm the judgment of the court below.
13

Download 2012-a-0013.pdf