About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/forthprop0012 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations PROPERTY 4TH (DRAFTS) VOLUME 2. INTERFERENCES WITH, AND LIMITS ON, OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION DIVISION I. PROPERTY TORTS CHAPTER 2. PRIVATE NUISANCE: PRIMA FACIE CASE TOPIC 1. PRIVATE NUISANCE, GENERALLY § 2.1 Private Nuisance Iowa, 2024. Quot. in sup., com. (d) quot. in sup. (quoting Vol. 2, Div. I, Ch. 2, Topic 1, § 2.1 of T.D. No. 3, 2022). Dairy farmers brought a nuisance claim against operator of a natural-gas pipeline that held an easement across the dairy farm, alleging that stray voltage from the cathodic-protection system protecting operator's pipes distressed farmers' dairy herd and caused farmers damages. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of farmers. Affirming, this court held that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that farmers could establish their nuisance claim without proof of negligence, because negligence was not an element of a nuisance claim. The court rejected operator's request that it adopt Restatement Second of Torts § 822, under which proof of either intentional conduct or negligence was an element for nuisance liability, noting that § 822 was not in accord with Iowa statutes and that the nuisance analysis set forth in Restatement Fourth of Property, Volume 2, Division I, Chapter 2, Topic 1, § 2.1 of T.D. No. 3, 2022 would soon supersede § 822. Vagts v. Northern Natural Gas Company, 8 N.W.3d 501, 517. § 2.2. Unreasonable Interference with Use and Enjoyment Iowa, 2024. Com. (d) quot. in conc. op. (quoting Vol. 2, Div. I, Ch. 2, Topic 1, § 2.2 of T.D. No. 3, 2022). Dairy farmers brought a nuisance claim against operator of a natural-gas pipeline that held an easement across the dairy farm, alleging that stray voltage from the cathodic-protection system protecting operator's pipes distressed farmers' dairy herd and caused farmers damages. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of farmers. Affirming, this court held that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that farmers could establish their nuisance claim without proof of negligence, because negligence was not an element of a nuisance claim. The concurring opinion argued that farmers' claim was a claim for strict-liability nuisance which, under Restatement Fourth of COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.