ÿWPC ‡dü’½Ù#kwžáº­úáFAŽ…p±Ô¾/>[gJi|ö?éò‰¶ 㑼º¬±‹Wº máKF}Iÿ7¨¾"ž|ë+ÎuU·`.$”Êó^›¹æ_}}ÂÓº¯Ö )D°Tì‰i°[;ìé¶°-4'ìþÎqˆÆ Ld”ÁÏ—~Ä:Ü„7TAœ ñX‰J GÓ—½Jæ°y¨r=˜¶GšiÚæQi= ÷6t( ³{À㙽٠¶S£*z×àf.ïë'3³ØÄœ•³Ì²ú‚ Ó³Sk¡6¦ó¨¬þº*›¨ýE¹âëtÕÊ8¯ +ëU:Da6ØGx8…âŒr<ØÚçòGï+ó©Á“;ük5€ô½?º--Îv¯" Õ—©O;éY¡àþ. tû Çgp ½ p|ô"ä;bà^KÇÇ{Eç%Ô-TÙÅÇR'Œ¥úJóxƒÞÍ?#Ÿí¯ÚÅųÁÊ¡éÞÃÂ:¯—‰8J4Ù`#!@U :a %› 0(¡b ÉwÕ4Ùíü Þ 0l÷ 0Dc § § § § N¾ ¾ ¾ ^ À Ì mÎ Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Bå å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å AQÆS 0D 0D] 0D¡¡ D3å˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -{Z='3|x Ñ  Ñ ÔÔ_ÔÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ô×8 òXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€action€is€about€damages,€and€there€can€be€no€doubt€that€an€action€for€damages€againstÐ Ü Ða€municipality€must€be€brought€under€the€provisions€of€the€Ô_ÔGTLAÔ_Ô.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„20„201(b).€Ð š¾ ÐThe€plaintiff€also€prayed€for€an€injunction,€although€they€have€not€pressed€that€issue.€€We€take€noÐ Z~  Ðposition€on€whether€a€plaintiff€would€also€have€to€comply€with€the€Ô_ÔGTLAÔ_Ô€if€the€complaint€sought€onlyÐ Ü Ðinjunctive€relief.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¿IXXÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÏÀX¿IÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€1,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAYÔó ó‘!' ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ„°ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑܰÑÑ€ÑÑ8€ÏÀXXdædÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼fF»XXÔÓ  ÓÑ€ P¨Ñßv€Y_@0,j:`  `€€@ÿEôÝ` 8ttxP,Üð  vßÔ_Ôà@ êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ Ü Ðà@ŸŸ(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XÏÀX»¼fFԈРð ÐÌÌÌÌÌDOROTHY€AND€ROGER€SMITH,à  à)Ð ‚ ¦ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à 8 àà  à)Ð Nr  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð 4X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9804„CH„00207Ð >  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð $  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àMaury€ChanceryÐ æ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€92„319Ð Ìð  ÐMAURY€COUNTY,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ²Ö  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendant/Appellant.à 8 àà  à)Ð ~¢ ÐÌÌà@ø ø êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€MAURY€COUNTYˆÌà@ªª#êàAT€COLUMBIA,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@  êàTHE€HONORABLE€WILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€H.€DINKINSÌ306€Gay€StreetÌSuite€210ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppelleesÌÌWILLIAM€H.€DALE,€JR.ÌP.€O.€Box€424ÌColumbia,€Tennessee€38402„0424Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppellantÌÌÌÌÌÌà@||$êàREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCOTTRELL,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓò òÔ€„ÜY„XXÏÀÔòòÐ :;^5; Ðà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÏÀX„„ÜYÔˆÐ Ü ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiffs,€a€mother€and€her€son€owning€adjoining€farms€on€a€ruralÐ p ” Ðroad€in€Maury€County,€sued€the€county€for€a€nuisance€created€when€the€countyÐ < ` Ðimproved€the€road.€€The€county€argued€that€the€exclusive€remedy€was€for€inverseÐ , Ðcondemnation,€and€that€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€barred€the€action.€€OnÐ Ôø  Ðappeal€the€county€asserts,€in€addition€to€its€original€defense,€that€the€damagesÐ  Ä  Ðawarded€were€beyond€the€range€of€reasonableness.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€belowÐ l  Ðand€remand€for€a€new€trial.Ð 8\ ÐÌà@²²-êàò òI.ó óˆÐ Ðô ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àMrs.€Dorothy€Smith€owns€sixty„three€acres€on€Ô_ÔTanyardÔ_Ô€Hollow€Road€inÐ t˜ ÐMaury€County.€€Her€son,€Mr.€Roger€Smith,€owns€seventy„seven€acres€adjoining€hisÐ @d Ðmotherððs€property€to€the€south.€€In€1989€or€1990€the€Smiths€and€other€landowners€inÐ  0 Ðthe€neighborhood€petitioned€the€county€to€widen€and€improve€the€road.€€TheÐ Ø!ü Ðneighbors€agreed€to€convey€to€the€county€a€fifty€foot€right€of€way€without€charge.€€TheÐ ¤#È  Ðcounty€began€the€work€in€the€spring€of€1990.€€They€straightened€the€road€and€leveledÐ p%”" Ðit€out,€cutting€dirt€from€the€high€places€to€fill€the€low€places.€€In€the€course€of€theÐ <'`!$ Ðconstruction€they€destroyed€two€stone„lined€underpasses,€big€enough€to€serve€asÐ ),#& Ðcattle€crossings€and€replaced€them€with€metal€culverts.€€The€construction€also€alteredÐ Ô*ø$( Ðthe€drainage€in€the€area€of€the€Smithsðð€property€and€the€county€left€the€cutsÐ  ,Ä&* Ðunprotected,€causing€extensive€erosion€in€some€places.€€The€county€substantiallyÐ l.(, Ðcompleted€the€project€by€September€of€1990.Ð 80\*. ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€May€29,€1992,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Smith€sued€the€county€for€creating€aÐ Ð3ô-2 Ðcontinuing€nuisance€on€their€properties.€€They€also€alleged€that€the€countyððs€actionsÐ œ5À/4 Ðamounted€to€an€unlawful€taking€of€their€property€without€just€compensation.€€TheÐ h7Œ16 Ðcounty€filed€an€answer€denying€the€material€allegations€of€the€complaint€and€raisingÐ 49X38 Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€as€a€defense€to€some€or€all€of€the€plaintiffsðð€claims.€€Mr.€SmithÐ ;$5: Ðamended€his€complaint€to€add€a€claim€for€indemnity€for€the€claims€of€his€neighbor€thatÐ Ü Ðwater€runoff€from€Mr.€Smithððs€property€was€eroding€the€neighborððs€property.Ð ¨Ì ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€jury€returned€a€verdict€for€Mrs.€Smith€in€the€amount€of€$10,000€andÐ @ d Ðfor€Mr.€Smith€in€the€amount€of€$100,000.€€The€trial€judge€suggested€a€Ô_ÔremittiturÔ_Ô€ofÐ  0 Ð$50,000€in€Mr.€Smithððs€case,€which€Mr.€Smith€accepted€under€protest.Ð Øü  ÐÌà@––-êàò òII.ˆÐ p”  Ðà@  êàTemporary€Nuisance€vs.€Inverse€Condemnationó óˆÐ Hl ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€county€asserts€that€the€plaintiffsðð€exclusive€remedy€was€for€inverseÐ ì Ðcondemnation€and€that€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„16„Ð ¸Ü Ð124€had€run€when€this€action€was€filed.€€We€admit€that€this€issue€causes€us€someÐ „¨ Ðtrouble€because€the€plaintiffs€testified€that€the€problems€about€which€they€complainÐ Pt Ðwere€obvious€from€the€time€of€the€first€rain€after€the€completion€of€the€project.€Ð @ ÐTherefore,€any€damage€resulting€from€a€taking€of€the€plaintiffsðð€property€would€haveÐ è  Ðbeen€barred€after€November€of€1991.€€òòSee€Hollers€v.€Campbell€Countyóó,€241€S.W.2dÐ ´"Ø  Ð523€(Tenn.€1951);€òòJones€v.€Ô_ÔCockeÔ_Ô€Countyóó,€420€S.W.2d€587€(Tenn.€App.€1967).Ð „$¨" ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€problem€is€compounded€by€a€line€of€decisions€in€this€state€thatÐ  (D"& Ðseem€to€require€a€landowner€to€sue€for€inverse€condemnation€rather€than€nuisance,Ð ì)$( Ðwhen€a€public€construction€project€damages€the€remaining€land.€€In€òòMonday€v.€Knox€Ð ¸+Ü%* ÐCountyóó,€417€S.W.2d€536€(Tenn.€1967),€the€landowner€sued€the€county€for€causingÐ ˆ-¬', Ðwater€to€collect€on€the€plaintiffððs€property,€because€the€county€failed€to€provideÐ X/|). Ðadequate€drainage€in€the€construction€of€a€new€highway.€€The€court€said€the€exclusiveÐ $1H+0 Ðremedy€was€in€inverse€condemnation€and€the€county€was€not€liable€for€creating€aÐ ð2-2 Ðnuisance.€€The€court€expressed€its€reason€this€way:Ð ¼4à.4 ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àComplainant€here€alleges€the€condition€causing€theÐ ˆ6¬06 Ðdamages€can€be€easily€corrected€by€making€certainÐ n7’17 Ðconstruction€changes€in€the€public€road.€€Presuming€thisÐ T8x28 Ðto€be€true€the€court€has€no€authority€to€order€such€changeÐ :9^39 Ðâ âin€construction;€for€to€do€so€would€in€effect€be€constructingÐ  :D4: Ðpublic€roads€by€judicial€order€which€would€result€in€utterÐ Ü Ðchaos.ÐÂæ0 ¤0 ¤ Ðâ âÌ417€S.W.2d€at€537.Ð Ž² ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àIn€òòPleasant€View€Utility€Dist.€v.€Ô_ÔVradenburgÔ_Ôóó,€545€S.W.2d€733€(Tenn.Ð & J Ð1977),€plaintiffs€sued€a€utility€district€for€discharging€thousands€of€gallons€of€water€ontoÐ ö   Ðtheir€land€every€three€days.€€The€complaint€asked€for€an€injunction€to€abate€theÐ Âæ  Ðnuisance.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€defendantsðð€action€of€discharging€waterÐ Ž²  Ðacross€the€plaintiffsðð€property€was€a€taking€of€a€flowage€easement€and€that€the€properÐ Z~  Ðremedy€was€damages€for€the€taking.€€The€Court€said:Ð &J ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àHaving€the€power€of€eminent€domain,€any€action€ofÐ ò Ðpetitioner,€in€carrying€out€the€purposes€for€which€it€wasÐ Øü Ðcreated,€which€destroys,€interrupts,€or€interferes€with€theÐ ¾â Ðcommon€and€necessary€use€of€real€property€of€another€isÐ ¤È Ða€ð ðtakingðð€of€such€property,€and€the€landownerððs€remedyÐ Š® Ðis€an€action€for€damages€under€the€inverse€condemnationÐ p” Ðstatute€(Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð23„1423),€not€injunctive€relief;€and,€theÐ Vz Ðaction€for€damages€is€subject€to€the€one€year€timeÐ <` Ðlimitation€set€forth€in€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€23„1424.Ð"F0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌ545€S.W.2d€at€735.Ð î ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àOn€the€other€hand,€the€court€in€òòHayes€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ôóó,€747€S.W.2dÐ †#ª! Ð346€(Tenn.€App.€1987),€held€that€the€proper€action€for€damages€for€an€excessiveÐ V%z# Ðrunoff€of€water€caused€by€the€improvements€to€a€city€street€was€not€an€action€forÐ "'F!% Ðinverse€condemnation€but€for€a€temporary€nuisance.€€The€court€relied€on€òòPate€v.€CityÐ î(#' Ðof€Martinóó,€614€S.W.2d€46€(Tenn.€1981),€in€which€the€city€operated€a€sewage€lagoonÐ ¾*â$) Ðin€such€a€manner€that€the€odor€made€ð ðhabitation€of€dwellings€in€the€vicinity€almostÐ Ž,²&+ Ðimpossible.ðð€€Without€discussing€the€question€of€whether€nuisance€was€the€properÐ Z.~(- Ðtheory€for€recovery,€the€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€the€lagoon€constituted€aÐ &0J*/ Ðtemporary€nuisance€and€the€measure€of€damages€was,€to€a€large€extent,€theÐ ò1,1 Ðdiminished€rental€value€of€the€property€until€the€abatement€of€the€nuisance.€€òòId.óó€at€48.Ð ¾3â-3 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àFollowing€the€decision€in€òòHayesóó,€the€Supreme€Court€addressed€theÐ Z7~17 Ðquestion€again€in€òòÔ_ÔPaduchÔ_Ô€v.€City€of€Johnson€Cityóó,€896€S.W.2d€767€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð *9N39 ÐAlthough€the€court€decided€that€the€plaintiffs€had€not€proved€the€existence€of€aÐ ú:5; Ðnuisance,€the€court€approved€the€result€reached€in€òòHayesóó.€€896€S.W.2d€at€772.€€WeÐ Ü Ðconclude,€therefore,€that€a€landowner€whose€property€has€been€adversely€affected€byÐ ¬Ð Ða€county€improvement€has€a€choice€of€remedies€against€the€county.€€If€the€adverseÐ x œ Ðeffect€amounts€to€a€taking€of€the€ownerððs€property,€the€proper€remedy€is€inverseÐ D h Ðcondemnation€under€the€eminent€domain€statutes.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„16„Ð  4 Ð123,€124.€€If,€however,€the€effect€on€the€landownerððs€property€is€a€nuisance€(describedÐ à  Ðby€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòPate€v.€City€of€Martinóó,€as€ð ðanything€that€annoys€or€disturbsÐ ¬Ð  Ðthe€free€use€of€oneððs€property,€or€that€renders€its€ordinary€use€or€physical€occupationÐ |   Ðuncomfortable.ðð€614€S.W.2d€at€47),€the€landowner€may€sue€the€county€for€theÐ Hl Ðnuisance.€€The€inverse€condemnation€claim€will€be€barred€one€year€after€discovery€ofÐ 8 Ðthe€taking.Ð à ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àA€further€complication€in€this€case€is€the€additional€holding€in€òòHayesóóÐ xœ Ðwhich€neither€party€addressed€at€the€trial€or€in€this€court.€€That€is€the€requirement€thatÐ Hl Ðthe€nuisance€remedy€must€be€pursued€in€accordance€with€the€Governmental€TortÐ 8 ÐLiability€Act€(Ô_ÔGTLAÔ_Ô).€€The€òòHayesóó€court€said:Ð à  ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àThus,€it€seems€clear€that€Hayesðð€claim€for€water€damageÐ °"Ô  Ðto€the€property€is€a€claim€for€temporary€nuisance.€Ð –#º! ÐHowever,€because€the€claim€is€against€a€municipality€ofÐ |$ " Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee,€it€must€be€adjudicated€under€theÐ b%†# Ðprovisions€of€the€Tennessee€Governmental€Tort€LiabilityÐ H&l $ ÐAct,€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðððð€29„20„101,€et€seq.€(1980€and€Supp.€1987).Ð.'R!%0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌ747€S.W.2d€at€350.Ð ú(#' ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àIn€òòÔ_ÔPaduchÔ_Ôóó€the€Supreme€Court€also€approved€this€holding.€€The€CourtÐ ’,¶&+ Ðsaid:Ð b.†(- ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àA€cause€of€action€under€the€Governmental€TortÐ .0R*/ ÐLiability€Act€may€lie€for€activities€of€a€governmental€entityÐ 18+0 Ðfor€which€immunity€has€been€waived€even€though€suchÐ ú1,1 Ðactivities€may€also€be€the€basis€for€the€equitable€action€toÐ à2-2 Ðabate€a€nuisance.€€The€provisions€of€the€GovernmentalÐ Æ3ê-3 ÐTort€Liability€Act€are€applicable€to€any€action€or€defenseÐ ¬4Ð.4 Ðasserted€which€comes€within€the€terms€of€the€Act.Ð’5¶/50 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌ896€S.W.2d€at€772.Ô_Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ ^7‚17 ЇÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àòòHayesóó€was€not€the€first€decision€on€this€point.€€The€western€section€ofÐ ¨Ì Ðthis€court€held€as€early€as€1983€that€ð ðthe€legislature€left€little€if€any€room€for€doubt€thatÐ x œ Ðactions€against€governmental€entities€for€damages€based€on€activities€historicallyÐ D h Ðlabeled€ððnuisanceðð€are€now€included€in€and€covered€by€the€act.ðð€€òòCollier€v.€Memphis,Ð  4 ÐLight,€Gas€&€Water€Divisionóó,€657€S.W.2d€771,€776€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€The€sameÐ à  Ðcourt€followed€that€reasoning€two€years€later€in€òòSmith€v.€City€of€Covingtonóó,€734€S.W.2dÐ °Ô  Ð327€(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€In€òòSmithóó,€sewage€intermittently€backed€up€on€the€plaintiffððsÐ €¤  Ðproperty€because€of€an€inadequate€city€sewer€system.€€The€court€recognized€that€theÐ Pt Ðcity€was€maintaining€a€nuisance€but€found€that,€in€order€to€maintain€the€action,€theÐ @ Ðplaintiff€must€comply€with€the€notice€requirements€of€the€Governmental€Tort€LiabilityÐ è  ÐAct.€€The€eastern€section€of€this€court€recently€followed€the€western€section€in€òòÔ_ÔBrittonÔ_ÔÐ ´Ø Ðv.€Claiborne€County,€Tenn.óó,€898€S.W.2d€220€(Tenn.€App.€1994).Ð „¨ ÐÌà@zz,êàò òIII.ˆÐ  D Ðà@,,+êàDamagesó óˆÐ ø  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiffs€introduced€the€testimony€of€a€professional€geologist€andÐ œ$À" Ðconstruction€manager€who€described€the€effect€of€the€road€work€on€the€SmithsððÐ h&Œ $ Ðproperty.€€One€of€the€primary€changes€was€the€destruction€of€the€two€underpassesÐ 4(X"& Ðthat€served€the€Smiths€as€cattle€crossings.€€The€county€replaced€the€underpasses€withÐ *$$( Ðmetal€culverts€that€were€unsuitable€for€the€passage€of€cattle.€€The€witness€estimatedÐ Ì+ð%* Ðthat€the€underpasses€could€be€restored€at€a€cost€of€$32,000.Ð ˜-¼', ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€other€major€effect€of€the€road€work€was€the€erosion€of€a€hillside€onÐ 01T+0 ÐMr.€Smithððs€property.€€The€witness€described€how€the€cut€into€the€slope€by€the€countyÐ ü2 -2 Ðhad€exposed€the€ground€and€how€the€water€had€caused€the€hillside€to€slip€inÐ È4ì.4 Ðsuccessive€stages€up€to€a€distance€of€approximately€seventy€feet€from€the€right€ofÐ ”6¸06 Ðway.€€The€total€area€involved€was€three€to€four€acres€of€Mr.€Smithððs€land.€€The€witnessÐ `8„28 Ðestimated€that€it€would€take€$100,000€to€restore€the€hillside.€€All€the€remedialÐ Ü Ðmeasures€recommended€by€the€witness€would€cost€a€total€of€$238,000.€€TheÐ ¨Ì Ðtestimony€was€admitted€over€the€defendantsðð€objection.Ð t ˜ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Smith€concedes€that€he€had€no€vested€right€to€the€use€of€theÐ  0 Ðunderpass€on€his€property.€€Therefore,€he€sustained€no€damages€when€it€wasÐ Øü  Ðreplaced€by€a€metal€culvert.€€We€think€it€was€error€to€allow€the€jury€to€hear€evidenceÐ ¤È  Ðthat€the€underpass€could€be€restored€for€a€cost€of€$32,000.Ð p”  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àAs€we€have€seen,€the€measure€of€damages€for€a€temporary€nuisanceÐ , Ðis€basically€the€diminished€rental€value€of€the€property€affected€by€the€nuisance.€€òòPateÐ Ôø Ðv.€City€of€Martinóó,€614€S.W.2d€46€(Tenn.€1981).€€The€plaintiffs€did€not€offer€any€proofÐ ¤È Ðof€the€value€of€their€land,€or€its€rental€value.€€The€county€introduced€evidence€that€theÐ t˜ Ðrental€value€of€the€property€was€fifteen€to€sixteen€dollars€per€acre€per€year.Ð @d ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€damages€should€also€include€something€forÐ Ø ü Ðtheir€discomfort,€annoyance,€and€inconvenience.€€The€county€asserts€that€discomfort,Ð ¤"È  Ðannoyance,€and€inconvenience€are€merely€factors€that€affect€the€rental€value€of€theÐ p$”" Ðproperty.€€That€seems€to€be€the€rule€announced€in€òòCity€of€Nashville€v.€Willsóó,€7€HigginsÐ <&` $ Ð97€(Tenn.€Civ.€App.€1916),€where€the€court€said:€ð ðthere€can€be€no€recovery€for€mereÐ  (0"& Ðdiscomfort,€annoyance€or€mental€distress€occasioned€by€the€nuisance,€unless€suchÐ Ø)ü#( Ðdiscomfort,€annoyance,€etc.,€proceeds€to€the€extent€of€injuring€the€usable€or€rentalÐ ¤+È%* Ðvalue€of€the€premises.ðð€€7€Higgins€at€109.€€The€court€deduced€this€rule€from€theÐ p-”', ÐSupreme€Courtððs€decisions€in€òòÔ_ÔGossettÔ_Ô€v.€So.€Ry.óó,€115€Tenn.€390€(1905)€and€òòTerminalÐ