Jost v. Dairyland Power Cooperative
Wisconsin Supreme Court
45 Wis. 2d 164, 172 N.W.2d 647 (1969)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Dairyland Power Cooperative (Dairyland) (defendant) operated a coal-burning power plant that provided electricity to a region. The plant emitted large amounts of sulfur-dioxide gas. For several years, the gas polluted the air of neighboring farms, damaging alfalfa crops, killing vegetable and flower gardens, and corroding farmhouse screen doors. Farmers Andrew Jost, Andrew Noll, and Norbert Noll (plaintiffs) sued Dairyland for nuisance, seeking financial compensation for their property damage. At trial, Dairyland did not dispute that its plant emitted the gas or that the gas caused property damage. Rather, Dairyland tried to introduce evidence that (1) it had not operated the plant negligently and (2) the plant’s societal benefit outweighed the harm it caused to the farmers. The trial court excluded both categories of evidence as irrelevant. The jury found that Dairyland had harmed each farmer’s crops over two prior years and awarded damages for that harm. However, only one farmer received a damage award for the permanently reduced market value of his land. Dairyland appealed the nuisance finding to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, arguing it should have been allowed to present evidence of its lack of negligence and the plant’s societal benefit. The farmers appealed, arguing they should all have received damages for lost market value.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Heffernan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.