Myrick v. Peck Electric Company

Landowner Nancy Myrick (plaintiff) sued Peck Electric Company (Peck) and two other companies involved in establishing solar farms (defendants). Likewise, landowners Dale Hastings and Jess Whitney (plaintiffs) sued Solarcommunities, Inc., and two other solar-energy companies (defendants). Myrick and the other plaintiffs sued the solar-energy companies after the solar-energy companies leased property from their neighbors for the installation of solar arrays or solar farms. Myrick and the other plaintiffs argued that solar farms created a private nuisance due to their effect on the rural aesthetic of the area, which caused a decline in the property values of nearby properties. Two of the solar companies moved for summary judgment. A trial court consolidated Myrick’s case with Hastings and Whitney’s case and granted the motion for summary judgment. The trial court based its decision on the fact that for 120 years, a thing was not rendered a nuisance under Vermont law simply because it was viewed as ugly or unappealing. Vermont law prohibited claims for private nuisance that were grounded solely on disapproval of a thing’s appearance. The landowners appealed, arguing that the trial court was wrong to grant summary judgment for two reasons. First, the landowners argued, nuisance law should be applied to causes of action based on aesthetic damage because society currently viewed scenic resources quite differently from how it did in 1896, when Hager, Vermont’s only precedent barring application, was decided. The landowners argued that Hager had ceased to be good law. Second, the landowners argued, aesthetic harm to the average person’s senses and ordinary comfort constituted a nuisance that could be compensated by assessing a diminution in a property’s value. The Vermont Supreme Court considered both arguments.