The Piggery
The Court Jester presents a real judge-written court opinion selected and edited by Colorado real estate and business attorney Diane Wolfson.
This case is about Normand and Raymond Ramsey, father and son, who sought to build a hotel.
The neighbors opposed the hotel, and the Ramseys got approval for only 15 units rather than the 79 units they wanted.
To retaliate against their neighbors, the Ramseys turned their land into a piggery.
The neighbors sued for nuisance.
There are three sets of plaintiffs: the Nelsons, the Florys, and the Cotys. The plaintiffs won at the trial court level, and the Ramseys appealed.
The appeals court began by describing the facts.
Shortly after the hotel ruling was received, a large, rusty storage tank was placed on the Ramsey parcel. This tank was never used. A few days later, the Ramseys and some workmen erected a fence around the parcel. When Mrs. Coty inquired as to the purpose of the fence, Normand Ramsey replied tersely: "Pigs."
Soon after, approximately sixteen truckloads of wet chicken manure, averaging thirteen cubic yards each, were dumped along a narrow strip directly across from the Nelson and Flory properties. The truck drivers had been instructed by Normand Ramsey to dump the manure along this particular strip, and Raymond Ramsey directed the dumping of the first truckload. The drivers used the Florys' driveway to turn their vehicles around, and both the driveway and the road were covered with manure. The dumping was halted when a temporary restraining order was served upon one of the drivers, who told police that the Ramseys had finally "gotten even" with plaintiffs.
At a subsequent hearing, the Ramseys testified that the manure would be used as fertilizer over an area of four acres, and the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction. However, the mounds of manure were merely leveled off within an area of one-half acre.
In the spring of 1983, approximately eleven to thirteen more truckloads of chicken manure were delivered, and most of these loads were deposited along the same strip of land. The resulting supply of fertilizer was so grossly in excess of the recommended application that it would kill any attempted crop.
The manure encouraged an infestation of flies that plagued plaintiffs' properties during the spring, summer, and fall of 1983 and 1984. A powerful stench also engulfed the area, eventually requiring the Florys to purchase air conditioners for their motel.
In late 1982, approximately one hundred pigs and cows were delivered to the property along with a house trailer and ten or more junked automobiles. The animals were fed at a place closest to plaintiffs' properties. In December of 1982, defendant Normand Ramsey telephoned Mrs. Nelson on two occasions and told her that serious consequences would follow if she continued her opposition to the motel.
During the winter of 1982, the animals had inadequate shelter, food and water and, as a result, became sick and lame. Mrs. Nelson made an offer to provide water, but was turned down. Animals died, and decomposing carcasses were left lying around.
With variations, the conditions that began in 1982 continued up until the spring of 1985. The manure was over three feet deep in places. The smell and resulting flies continued through 1984.
Because the pigs were not properly separated, the boars mingled with the piglets and attacked them. Roosters were penned together so that they pecked each other to death. By the fall of 1984, the property contained over two hundred sickly animals along with over twenty carcasses of dead pigs, piglets, sheep and a goat. The dead animals were finally placed in an uncovered pit. Many of the piglets born in the winter of 1984-85 died; eight to ten burlap bags filled with piglet carcasses were removed.
Normand Ramsey knew of these conditions and took few, if any, steps to improve them until just before the case came to trial.
Public curiosity was stimulated by the piggery, and traffic became congested in front of plaintiffs' properties. Tourists would often trespass upon plaintiffs' land in order to view and photograph the spectacle, and defendants issued an instruction sheet to farmhands regarding the treatment of tourists.
“Public curiosity was stimulated by the piggery, and traffic became congested ...”
Defendants invested about $50,000 in the farm, excluding the purchase price of the land. No pigs were ever sold or marketed for their income.
Conditions greatly improved shortly before the case came to trial. The animals began receiving regular veterinary care along with adequate shelter and provisions. The number of pigs on the property was greatly reduced and healthy pigs arrived to replace sickly ones. The storage tank was screened and the junk cars removed.
The court of appeals recapped what happened at the trial court level.
The trial court found that defendants “used the pretext of operating a farm to abuse and kill animals which itself had no purpose other than to intentionally annoy, upset and harass plaintiffs and to cause them economic injury."
The trial court ruled that defendants' operations caused each of the plaintiffs to lose the full use and enjoyment of their land, to suffer emotional distress and, in the case of the Florys and Mrs. Nelson, to lose business income.
The trial court also concluded that operation of the farm constituted a nuisance and enjoined further operations not in accordance with proper husbandry practices. The court further concluded that the Florys and Mrs. Nelson had suffered a trespass as a result of the manure spilled on their properties and the pollution of Mrs. Nelson's well and springs.
The trial court awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages and $80,000 in punitive damages to the Cotys; $70,500 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages to Mrs. Nelson; and $77,161 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages to the Florys.
The Ramseys appealed the trial court decision, claiming on appeal that the farm operations did not constitute a nuisance.
The appeals court disagreed, finding that the piggery was a nuisance to its neighbors, especially in light of the Ramseys’ maliciousness, and it affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
This case was selected and edited by Diane Wolfson, the managing partner of Sphere Law Firm. She is a Colorado attorney specializing in real estate, business and litigation.