Home/Utah Supreme Court/Hatch v. WS Hatch Company

Hatch v. WS Hatch Company

283 P.2d 217, 3 Utah 2d 295, 1955 Utah LEXIS 147
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedMay 5, 1955
Docket8215
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 P.2d 217 (Hatch v. WS Hatch Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hatch v. WS Hatch Company, 283 P.2d 217, 3 Utah 2d 295, 1955 Utah LEXIS 147 (Utah 1955).

Opinion

McDonough, chief justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from a dismissal of their cause after a trial on the merits by the court sitting without a jury, contending that the trial court erred in finding that no actionable nuisance is maintained by the defendants on property adjoining plaintiffs’ residential property.

Plaintiff Glen A. Hatch and defendant W. S. Hatch are brothers, who inherited contiguous pieces of property, with a house on each lot, situated in Woods Cross, Davis County, Utah. Plaintiffs moved into their home in 1917, but did not obtain title until 1935, doing substantial remodelling in 1935 and again in 1951; they occupy the property primarily as a residence, doing some farming thereon and maintaining a filling pump and storage garage in the rear of their house for trucks belonging to Hatch Brothers Company, a livestock corporation in which both brothers hold stock. Defendant moved into his residence, immediately north of plaintiff’s property, about 1935 and utilized the area behind the house to establish a business of transporting road tars and oils. The company, here also made defendant, had its inception in about 1937 when W. S. Hatch purchased an insulated distributor. Since that time it has expanded to an operation maintaining it own garage for servicing its equipment consisting of 46 machines and employing as many as 45 men at the peale of the road-building season, which is, of course, the months of good weather in this area. Plaintiffs complain chiefly of the noises, fumes from trucks, and lights at night from the garage located about 280 feet to the rear of their home. Included also in their complaint was an allegation that the defendants allowed tires and other debris to accumulate along the fence between the two properties, but this condition was remedied a few days prior to the trial of the case.

On appeal, plaintiffs decry the trial court’s finding “that within a radius of 500 feet of the Woods Cross intersection is one of the most highly industrialized areas in the State of Utah,” contending that the land there is equally devoted to agriculture and residences. The main line of the Union Pacific Railroad passes 195 feet west of plaintiffs’ house and during a normal 24-hour period, 42 trains travel the section in front of their home, with the attendant noises and flashing lights necessary for *297 warning signals at the crossing. Onio-n Street, upon which plaintiffs’ property fronts, carries a heavy traffic of automobiles and tracks. Also within the immediate area, the Phillips Petroleum Company operates and maintains a large bulk plant, a refinery, and a catalyst cracker; that company also owns and operates two racks for loading tank trucks with oils. Two other trucking garages for the repair and service of tank 'trucks, semi-trailers and trailers of other carriers of petroleum products are located nearby. However, although these industries have developed, since the location of the W. S. Hatch Company, all along one side of Onion Street right up to plaintiffs’ home, their house marks the last outpost of lots used solely for residences and beyond it there are no other industries. The area is more accurately shown by the aerial photograph introduced as defendants’ exhibit : (North is to the left; arrow indicates contiguous properties of plaintiffs and defendants.)

However, the categorization of the neighborhood as industrial would not justify the creation of a nuisance therein, Ludlow v. Colorado Animal By-Products Co., 104 Utah 221, 137 P.2d 347, and where, as here, we have uncontroverted evidencé as to the nature 'of the use of the various properties surrounding plaintiffs’ land, there is no need to determine its predominant attributes. The fact that other noisy industrial operations are taking place in that area bears only upon whether or not defendants’ activities are reasonable in that particular locality and hence, whether or not a nuisance exists. As is stated in 39 Am.Jur., Nuisances, sec. 47, page 331:

“There can be no fixed standard as to what noise constitutes a nuisance, and the circumstances of the case must necessarily influence the decision. To amount to a nuisance, the noise must be unreasonable in degree, and reasonableness in this respect is a question of fact.. No one is entitled to absolute quiet in the enjoyment of his property; he may only insist upon a degree of quietness consistent with the standard of comfort prevailing in the locality in which he dwells. The location and surroundings must be considered, since noise which amounts to a nuisance in one locality may be entirely proper in another. The character and magnitude of the industry or business complained of and the manner in which it is conducted must also be taken into consideration, and so must the character and volunté of the noise, the time and the duration *299 of its occurence, the number of people affected by it, and all the facts and circumstances of the case.”

*298

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pratt v. Hercules, Inc.
570 F. Supp. 773 (D. Utah, 1982)
Koseris v. JR Simplot Company
352 P.2d 235 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 P.2d 217, 3 Utah 2d 295, 1955 Utah LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-ws-hatch-company-utah-1955.