Refusal to Enjoin Shooting Range Is Just Ducky

Lost Creek is a not-for-profit organization that has been operating a shooting range since 1934 in a rural area of Vigo County, Indiana. Shooting activities at Lost Creek’s shooting range increased after September 11, 2001, because members of Vigo County’s law enforcement began using their range. On July 17, 2007, the homeowners who lived near Lost Creek filed a complaint for injunctive relief seeking to abate the nuisance of the shooting range.

In Phyllis Woodsmall, et al. v. Lost Creek Township Conservation Club, Inc., Case No. 84A01-1001-PL-33, the trial court refused to enjoin Lost Creek because the homeowners failed to establish their burden of proof. Accordingly, the homeowners appealed, from a negative judgment, and the case was reviewed by the Indiana Court of Appeals under the clearly erroneous standard. To prevail under this standard, the homeowners had to establish that the conclusion reached by the trial court was contrary to the law.

In Indiana, the statute defines an actionable nuisance as: “Whatever is (1) injurious to health; (2) indecent; (3) offensive to the senses; or (4) an obstruction to the free use of property; so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property [.]” IC § 32-30-6-6. The homeowners’ statutory nuisance complaint concerned the legal use of land that affected a finite number of people. Thus, they alleged a private, per accidens nuisance against Lost Creek.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying the homeowners’ injunctive relief and nuisance claim. It held that the evidence brought by the homeowners did not lead solely to the conclusion that Lost Creek used its property to the detriment of others because there was no actual property damage or physical injury. The homeowners did not provide evidence that addressed the decibel levels when guns were being fired. In fact, a video submitted into evidence for the purpose of documenting the alleged nuisance showed a duck in the background of the video sitting peacefully in a lake, as well as a homeowner, who was involved in the suit, continuing on with his yard work. In addition, none of the homeowners testified as to property damage or physical injury. A homeowner’s mere fear or apprehension from an alleged nuisance is too speculative and is, therefore, insufficient to establish a nuisance claim. Because the homeowners failed to establish that the evidence was uncontroverted in their favor, they failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s judgment was contrary to law. Affirmed.