O'Neal Et Ux. v. Southern Carbon Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

O'Neal Et Ux. v. Southern Carbon Co.

31 So. 2d 216, 211 La. 1075, 1947 La. LEXIS 820

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 17, 1947

DocketNo. 38146.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 So. 2d 216 (O'Neal Et Ux. v. Southern Carbon Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neal Et Ux. v. Southern Carbon Co., 31 So. 2d 216, 211 La. 1075, 1947 La. LEXIS 820 (La. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiffs, Robert L. O’Neal and his-wife, brought suit against the Southern Carbon Company seeking to recover damages for injury to their residence, the contents therein, and to their persons alleged to be occasioned by soot and oily substances, dispensed from the defendant’s plant in the-manufacture of carbon black. The plaintiffs allege that the injury occasioned is-substantial' and irreparable. They ask for an award of damages and the abatement of the alleged nuisance.

The plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed by the-lower court by a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action. They have appealed.

It appears from the written reasons for judgment handed down by the lower court that the suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to allege any negli *1078 gence on the part of the defendant. The lower court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs would not he entitled to recover damages in the absence of any allegation or proof of negligence on the part of the defendant.

We have this day handed, down an opinion in the case of Devoke et al. v. Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, La.Sup., 30 So.2d 816, wherein we discussed at' length the law governing nuisances arising from the operation of a lawful business which caused substantial injury to adjoining property owners, and arrived at the conclusion that liability in such cases does not depend on the question of negligence. We cited many authorities to support our conclusion. Since the liability does not depend on the question of negligence, the plaintiffs’ petition is sufficient to support a cause of action although it does not contain any allegation of negligence.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and set aside; the exception of no cause of action is overruled; and the case is remanded to the lower court to be proceeded with according to law. The cost of this appeal is to be paid by the defendant, and all other costs are to await the final disposition of the cause.

O’Niell, C. J., concurs in the decree.

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

PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiffs, Robert L. O’Neal and his-wife, brought suit against the Southern Carbon Company seeking to recover damages for injury to their residence, the contents therein, and to their persons alleged to be occasioned by soot and oily substances, dispensed from the defendant’s plant in the-manufacture of carbon black. The plaintiffs allege that the injury occasioned is-substantial' and irreparable. They ask for an award of damages and the abatement of the alleged nuisance.

The plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed by the-lower court by a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action. They have appealed.

It appears from the written reasons for judgment handed down by the lower court that the suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to allege any negli *1078 gence on the part of the defendant. The lower court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs would not he entitled to recover damages in the absence of any allegation or proof of negligence on the part of the defendant.

We have this day handed, down an opinion in the case of Devoke et al. v. Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, La.Sup., 30 So.2d 816, wherein we discussed at' length the law governing nuisances arising from the operation of a lawful business which caused substantial injury to adjoining property owners, and arrived at the conclusion that liability in such cases does not depend on the question of negligence. We cited many authorities to support our conclusion. Since the liability does not depend on the question of negligence, the plaintiffs’ petition is sufficient to support a cause of action although it does not contain any allegation of negligence.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and set aside; the exception of no cause of action is overruled; and the case is remanded to the lower court to be proceeded with according to law. The cost of this appeal is to be paid by the defendant, and all other costs are to await the final disposition of the cause.

O’Niell, C. J., concurs in the decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 2d 216, 211 La. 1075, 1947 La. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-et-ux-v-southern-carbon-co-la-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack