Hog Nuisance Lawyer

Here are some other issues that can provide better insight to their situation:

  • Fecal matter on houses
  • Animal parts scattered in and around their property
  • Contamination of wells
  • Olympic swimming pools sized ditches filled with manure

These issues resulted in a reduced quality of life that compromised their health and air quality as well as the employment and use of their property. It also effected their ability to engage in outdoor activities such as doing laundry outside and having outdoor picnics.

McKiver, et al. v. Murphy Brown LLC No, 7:14-cv-180 (E.D.N.C.), neighbors of one of the farms complained that the open air lagoons and spray fields the farm used for waste management had negative effects on their health and quality of life. They also alleged that Murphy Brown had the means to implement a system that would not be as detrimental to the neighbors but chose not to.

A three week trial ensued which resulted in a verdict that awarded the plaintiffs $51 million in damages. However, that award was reduced in light of a state law that caps the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded.

McGowan et. al. v. Murphy-Brown, LLC No. 7:14-cv-000182 (E.D.N.C.). This trial involved a husband and wife who lived near a 4700 head hog farm. The trial would mark the first complaint the couple had filed against the farm and they were awarded $25 million in damages as a result.

A more recent trial, Jacobs et. al vs. Murphy Brown, LLC, No. 7:14-cv-00237 (E.D.N.C), involved the neighbors of three industrial scale hog farms. They were seeking damages for unreasonable nuisances they suffered from odors, rumbling trucks and an infestation of flies. The neighbors were awarded $473.5 million in damages, the largest verdict to date. This may be a sign that awards will continue to increase as more of these hog farm cases are tried.

Key Points of the Trials

In North Carolina, and other states in the U.S., right-to-farm laws are put in place to protect farmers from nuisance laws filed by individuals in rural areas. Often neighbors move into these rural areas and then attempt to use nuisance laws to stop operations that pre-date their residence.

In North Carolina, right to farm laws protect farmers from nuisance claims that may be filed when the area around the farm changes due to a residential development or similar activity. Neighbors may claim that the preexisting farm uses create a nuisance.

In the McKiver case, it was found that the farmers would not be protected by the right to farm law because the plaintiffs lived in the area before the farms were built.

Right to Farm Laws

However, it should be noted that every state’s right to farm law are different. For example, in Texas, the right to farm law applies to any agricultural facility that has been operating for one year and did nothing to change the conditions neighbors were complaining about.

In comparison to North Carolina where right to farm laws focus on the conditions in and around the operation, Texas focuses more on the conditions that may constitute the nuisance.

Another key point to take note of is that recovery was allowed in each of these cases even though the farms were technically performing their business legally. In the McKiver case, for example, the plaintiffs did not allege that Murphy Brown’s use of open-air lagoons and spray fields were illegal, rather they alleged that the company could have implemented a system which would not be as harmful or disruptive to their neighbors but chose not to.

While the awards given were limited to money damage, nothing prohibits the plaintiffs from seeking injunctive relief in the form of asking the court to require the farmers to change their ways of operating so as not to have as much of a negative impact on the surrounding residents.

A final point is that the chief issue was odor. With a possible rising trend in public opinion against agriculture, it is wise for hog producers and other agricultural businesses to take the proper precautions in reference to waste management.

Finding the Right Lawyer for Your Property Claim

If you are involved in a situation where you feel a neighbor’s behavior is resulting in a loss of the employment and use of your property, you need a reliable lawyer on your side.

Krause & Kinsman are a Kansas City legal team with experience in various facets of the law including mass tort cases. They understand how difficult it is to deal with large corporations and they are there to listen and help. They offer free case evaluations, reasonable rates and aggressive representation.

If a hog farms or processing plants in your area are engaging in actions that are negatively affecting your quality of life, don’t let them get away with it. Team up with a reliable lawyer to get the justice you deserve.

Our Reputation

The Krause & Kinsman Law Firm is made up of some of the nation’s foremost legal minds in the mass-tort field. That’s why our clients & co-counsel partners choose us.

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, and Co-Chair of the Law & Briefing Committee in MDL 2846:

In Re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in MDL 2974:

In Re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in MDL 2924:

In Re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation

Along with the aforementioned MDLs,

Plaintiff’s Counsel has prosecuted thousands of cases across other Multi-District Litigations and Mass-Torts, including:

MDL No. 3043:

Acetaminophen ASD/ADHD Product Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2753:

Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2782:

Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation

MCL No. 627:

In Re: Physiomesh Litigation, MCL

MCL No. 633:

In Re: Prolene Hernia System Mesh Litigation

MDL No. 2750:

Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2641:

Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2326:

In Re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2606:

Benicar (Olmesartan) Product Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2666:

In Re: Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2591:

Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation

MDL No. 2936:

In Re: Smity’s/CAM2303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

MCL No. 630:

In Re: Proceed Mesh Litigation

MDL No. 2543:

In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation

MDL No. 2004:

In Re: Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2187:

In Re: C. R. Bard, Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2325:

In Re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2327:

In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2387:

In Re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 251:

In Re: Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

Highly Awarded Trial Attorneys

The Krause & Kinsman Law Firm is one of the nation’s leading mass-tort & personal-injury law firms. The founding partners, Adam & Robert, have been selected to serve on steering committees for some of the largest pharmaceutical mass-tort cases.

Working With Us

Partnering with Krause & Kinsman is easy. When you partner with Krause & Kinsman, you can be sure that our mutual clients’ complex matters are handled with the utmost care and dedication. In addition to our top-notch representation, we will ensure our mutual clients receive frequent communication about the status of their cases.

Partner With Us

Why Us?

Recognized leaders in mass-torts with vast experience in complex litigation.

Your clients will appreciate the high-quality representation provided.

Your clients will consistently real-time updates on the status of their case via video, email, text, and phone.

Get real-time updates on the status of our mutual clients while their cases progress.

Collaborate on the case together and receive co-counsel fees.