Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner
Texas Supreme Court
505 S.W.3d 580 (2016)
A defendant can be liable for a private nuisance when he or she substantially and unreasonably interferes with another's use and enjoyment of property. But what if the defendant's use of his or her property isn't unreasonable?
Can the use still constitute a nuisance?
The Texas Supreme Court considered this question in Crosstex's North Texas Pipeline Limited Partnership versus Gardiner.
In two thousand five, Crosstex's North Texas Pipeline Limited Partnership purchased rural land in Northeast Texas as a site for a compressor station. At the same time, Andrew and Shannon Gardiner owned undeveloped land along the southwest corner of Crosstex's tract. The compressor station included four large diesel engines that ran continuously.
The gardeners and other neighboring landowners eventually complained of the noise. Crosstex then hired a professional sound control firm and began implementing mitigation efforts.
When the mitigation efforts failed, the gardeners sued Crosstex in state district court for intentional nuisance, negligent nuisance, and ordinary negligence.
At trial, the court directed a verdict on the Gardiners' ordinary negligence claim and submitted their intentional and negligent nuisance claims to the jury. The court also denied the gardener's request for a jury question on whether Crosstex created a nuisance based on strict liability.
The jury found for the gardeners on their negligent nuisance claim. Crosstex appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed the jury's factual finding of negligence and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also found that the trial court should have submitted the question regarding nuisance based on strict liability to the jury. The Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/crosstex-north-texas-pipeline-l-p-v-gardiner
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/crosstex-north-texas-pipeline-l-p-v-gardiner
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner
Texas Supreme Court
505 S.W.3d 580 (2016)
A defendant can be liable for a private nuisance when he or she substantially and unreasonably interferes with another's use and enjoyment of property. But what if the defendant's use of his or her property isn't unreasonable?
Can the use still constitute a nuisance?
The Texas Supreme Court considered this question in Crosstex's North Texas Pipeline Limited Partnership versus Gardiner.
In two thousand five, Crosstex's North Texas Pipeline Limited Partnership purchased rural land in Northeast Texas as a site for a compressor station. At the same time, Andrew and Shannon Gardiner owned undeveloped land along the southwest corner of Crosstex's tract. The compressor station included four large diesel engines that ran continuously.
The gardeners and other neighboring landowners eventually complained of the noise. Crosstex then hired a professional sound control firm and began implementing mitigation efforts.
When the mitigation efforts failed, the gardeners sued Crosstex in state district court for intentional nuisance, negligent nuisance, and ordinary negligence.
At trial, the court directed a verdict on the Gardiners' ordinary negligence claim and submitted their intentional and negligent nuisance claims to the jury. The court also denied the gardener's request for a jury question on whether Crosstex created a nuisance based on strict liability.
The jury found for the gardeners on their negligent nuisance claim. Crosstex appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed the jury's factual finding of negligence and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also found that the trial court should have submitted the question regarding nuisance based on strict liability to the jury. The Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/crosstex-north-texas-pipeline-l-p-v-gardiner
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/crosstex-north-texas-pipeline-l-p-v-gardiner
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
