Mississippi: Ferae Naturae Alligators Next Door Cannot Be A Private Nuisance

Yesterday, we posted one of those only-in-Hawaii kind of cases. Today, by coincidence, is one of those only-in-the-south type of cases: 

The Christmases’ wild-alligator-nuisance claim is a case of first impression in Mississippi.

In Christmas v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2011-CT-01311-SCT (May 15, 2014), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a wild alligator infestation on a neighboring property is not a private nuisance as a matter of law. Why? Because alligators -- particularly wild alligators -- even though they can be such a pain, are something that every property owner wants next door? Nope, because wild alligators are a protected species, and the owner of the property which they infest (in this case Exxon), can't do much of anything to abate said infestation without running afoul of the State of Mississippi's statute which says you cannot "buy, sell, take, or posess alligator eggs," you can't disturb their nests, and you can't "hunt, kill, catch, chase, or possess alligators or parts thereof" without a state-issued permit.

It's a short opinion, so we urge you to read it yourself, but here are some "only-in" highlights:

• "Tom and Consandra Christmas own property neighboring an alligator-infested, waste disposal site owned by Exxon. They sued Exxon, claiming the alligator infestation was a nuisance."

• "Before they completed their purchase, their real estate agent, Alan Ryan, told them that his horse had been injured on the property and that he suspected an alligator did it. The Christmases also saw a few alligators on their property from 2003 to 2007. However, they claim they did not know that their property adjoined an alligator-infested, waste-disposal site until 2007 when Mr. Christmas went onto Exxon’s property to retrieve one of his dogs."
• "The Christmases sued Exxon on August 11, 2008, alleging that the alligator nfestation constituted a nuisance."
• "We find the dispositive issue in this case is whether the presence of wild alligators can constitute a private nuisance." [Boy howdy!]
• "At the outset, we find it important to clarify that this is a wild-alligator case. There is no evidence that Exxon brought the alligators to its property or that it is restraining the alligators in any way. The Christmases claim that alligators were brought to what is now Exxon’s property in the early 1980s."

• "Consequently, allowing wild alligators to constitute a private nuisance would subject landowners to liability for something over which they have no control."

Three Justices dissented, asserting that "large numbers of naturally-occurring alligators reside in this state. If a landowner, in violation of Mississippi law, amassed wild alligators or lured them to his or her property, those alligators could not be said to exist in a state of nature, and the landowner certainly could be held liable for creating and maintaining a nuisance. Here, the record is replete with evidence supporting the Christmases’ claim that alligators had been introduced to Exxon’s property and constituted a nuisance."

Thanks to Dwight "Alligator" Merriam for passing this decision along.

P.S. - we added the Latin ferae naturae to the title simply because we could, and because we haven't had that many opportunities since Property I back in law school to use the term. When we employ Latin, we really feel all lawyerly and stuff.  

Christmas v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2011-CT-01311-SCT (Miss. May 15, 2014) (en banc)