question on hunting w/dogs

[greencows00]

ok i dont dog drive, dont care for it.. found out today that a group next to our land is going to dog drive... now these dogs are going to be on our land.. what legal aspects do we have to keep the hunters off our land? id like to keep the dogs off too... hate a hunt being ruined because of a dog drive. new posted signs will be in place this weekend .. like that keeps most dog hunters off anything..

[highballing22]

you must not have ever heard a good race comin towards you as fast as they can run em...aint nuthin like it...its ashame more ppl aint into it.

[Moatsy]

what are they driving? like a hundred acres or less?

[highballing22]

aint got no land to have it on...and you are right...some of them are in about the same class as obama....but there are also some who are good guys and try there hardest to play by the rules

[huntchessies]

dog's runing deer get "eaten by gators" all the time...... WINK WINK.... I'm one of those darn yankee transplants you all hate so much and back home in michigan if we see a dog runing deer it's expected that the dog is shot first.

wrong.... maybe...... but if i spent the money to own a large chunk of land and the time to manage it for good hunting i'd take care of my investment. can't say i'd go out of my way but i wouldn't shy from it.

[highballing22]

dog's runing deer get "eaten by gators" all the time...... WINK WINK.... I'm one of those darn yankee transplants you all hate so much and back home in michigan if we see a dog runing deer it's expected that the dog is shot first.

wrong.... maybe...... but if i spent the money to own a large chunk of land and the time to manage it for good hunting i'd take care of my investment. can't say i'd go out of my way but i wouldn't shy from it.

why would you even tell ppl that?

[coonsqualler98]

Greencows, I don't think you have met most of the dog hunters in this state. Yes, it is not the most popular sport on the front of ESPN magazine, but it is hunting none the less. What I am getting at is the non hunting public generally does not like any type of killing. So the chipping away at a form of hunting is a loss for all sportsmen. My suggestion is talk to the president of the club or the land owner and let them know your intentions. The dog clubs that I know would respect your wishes and include you and work with you. Like gentlemen, like South Carolinians. If you have renegade neighbors like the aforementioned political statement, then call then call DNR and head off the problem before it occurs.

[adk]

some dog hunters are fucking douches...but some are nice guys and its just how they learned to hunt. you have to respect that.

that having been said, if theyre tresspassing then there is a problem. give them a warning, put up signs, and if it happens again call DNR. ive found that most dnr leos dont like trespassers at all.


and for god's sake, dont shoot a dog...

[greencows00]

wont shoot the dog... but will scare the hell out of it...

[highballing22]

some dog hunters are fucking douches...but some are nice guys and its just how they learned to hunt. you have to respect that.

that having been said, if theyre tresspassing then there is a problem. give them a warning, put up signs, and if it happens again call DNR. ive found that most dnr leos dont like trespassers at all.


and for god's sake, dont shoot a dog...

thats good advice...if you start shooting there dogs, you are no better than they are.

[dixiedeerslaya]

wont shoot the dog... but will scare the hell out of it...

HOW ARE YOU GONNA SCARE A DOG THAT HAS DEER SHOT IN FRONT OF IT ALL THE TIME?

GO TO CHARLESTONFISHING.COM...... THATS WHERE ALL THE ANTI DOG HUNTERS HANG OUT.... THEY SIT OVER THERE AND RUB THERE PUSSIES WHILE THEY WHINE ABOUT DOG HUNTING....

THERE ARE BAD GUYS IN ALL TYPES OF HUNTING..... THERE ARE ALOT OF BAD DOG HUNTERS BUT THERE ARE ALSO ALOT OF GOOD ONES THAT WILL DO ALL THEY CAN DO TO RESPECT YOUR LAND.....

IM NOT A DOG HUNTER BUT DO GO ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR... DOG HUNTERS CATCH ALOT OF HELL

[sc_slim]

"The traditional concept of a nuisance requires a landowner to
demonstrate that the defendant unreasonably interfered with his ownership
or possession of the land." Silvester v. Spring Valley Country Club,
344 S.C. 280, 286, 543 S.E.2d 563, 566 (Ct.App. 2001). Nuisance is a
substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and
enjoyment
Page 414
of his land. Id. "Nuisance law is based on the premise that
`[e]very citizen holds his property subject to the implied obligation
that he will use it in such a way as not to prevent others from enjoying
the use of their property.'" Clark v. Greenville County, 313 S.C. 205,
209, 437 S.E.2d 117, 119 (1993) (citations omitted). In South Carolina, a
landlord cannot be held liable for a nuisance arising from the use of his
land when the landlord has no control over the property at the time of
the alleged nuisance. See id. at 210, 437 S.E.2d at 119. Conversely, if
the landowner maintains complete control of the leased property, he may
be liable for the nuisance created by the use of the land. See Peden v.
Furman University, 155 S.C. 1, 19, 151 S.E. 907, 913 (1930).

In Peden, Furman University leased its baseball field to the Greenville
Baseball Association. Frequently, baseballs were batted over the fence
surrounding the ball field onto other landowners' property. When a
neighboring landowner sued, the University claimed it had no control over
the ball field and, therefore, could not be held liable for any nuisance
caused by its use. Id. The supreme court found the University had
"complete control" of the property under terms of the lease, and
concluded the University could be held liable. Id. Furthermore, the court
stated, "In order to charge the landlord, the nuisance must necessarily
result from the ordinary use of the premises by the tenant, or for the
purpose for which they were let . . . ." Id.

International Paper argues it cannot be liable for a nuisance arising
from its tenants' use of the land in light of recent South Carolina
decisions that hold landlords are not liable for the actions of dogs
belonging to their tenants, even in cases where the landlord knew of the
danger of a foreseeable harm. See Mitchell v. Bazzle, 304 S.C. 402,
404 S.E.2d 910 (Ct.App. 1991). In Mitchell, this court found that even
though the landlord knew of the dog's viciousness, had adequate time to
terminate the tenant's lease, and failed to terminate the tenant's
lease, the landlord was not liable for the acts of the tenant's dog
over, which the landlord had no control. Id., at 405,
404 S.E.2d at 911-12.
Also, in Fair v. United States, 334 S.C. 321, 513 S.E.2d 616
(1999), the supreme court held a landlord was not liable to a tenant's
invitee for harm caused by the tenant's dog. International Paper
Page 415
argues that if a landowner cannot be held liable for damages based on the
facts in these cases, it would be inappropriate to hold the landowner
responsible for the actions of its tenants' dogs in the instant action.

Because Mitchell and Fair were actions in tort based on negligence and
premises liability, we find these cases are inapplicable. FOC Lawshe's
cause of action is based on nuisance. Negligence is not an element of
nuisance, and an action for nuisance may lie even though there has been
no negligence on the part of the landlord. See Peden, 155 S.C. at 17-18,
151 S.E. 912 (stating a landlord can be found liable for a nuisance even
though he may have exercised reasonable care). Moreover, the mere fact
that dogs are the relevant subjects of the alleged nuisance does not in
itself place the action in any particular category of cases. We see no
rationale for distinguishing a nuisance caused by dogs from a nuisance
caused by baseballs where both enter upon a neighbor's land disrupting
the use and enjoyment of the property. Accordingly, Peden is
controlling. Under Peden, the appropriate analysis is whether
International Paper had complete control over the land and whether the
alleged nuisance necessarily results from the ordinary use of the lands
by International Paper's tenants or for the purpose for which the lands
were let. 155 S.C. at 19, 151 S.E. at 913. Applying Peden, we find FOC
Lawshe alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action against
International Paper.

In its complaint, FOC Lawshe alleges that despite the leases to the
hunt clubs, International Paper reserved the right to and does control
the premises and the activities on the land. The complaint alleges that
International Paper allows the use of its lands for the type of deer
hunting which uses dogs to drive the deer. Moreover, the complaint
alleges the dogs used by the hunt clubs will continue to trespass onto
FOC Lawshe's lands. FOC Lawshe alleges this continuing trespass prevents
it using its property for the purpose for which it was purchased.

In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we look
only to the pleadings to determine whether sufficient facts are alleged
to establish a cause of action. See Brown, 291 S.C. at 366,
353 S.E.2d at 698. In viewing the face
Page 416
of the complaint, we find the allegation that
International Paper retained control over the property and activities
thereon sufficiently satisfies the control element of Peden.
155 S.C. at 19,
151 S.E. at 913. Moreover, the allegation that International Paper
permits the use of its lands for the type of deer hunting utilizing dogs
and that the dogs will continue to enter onto FOC Lawshe's land satisfies
the requirement that the nuisance must necessarily result from the
ordinary use of the premises by the tenant, or for the purpose for which
they were let. Id. Accordingly, we find the trial judge was correct in
denying International Paper's motion to dismiss pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6).

B. Temporary Injunction

FOC Lawshe asserts the trial court erred in denying its motion for a
temporary injunction prohibiting International Paper from allowing the
use of dogs for hunting on its land. We disagree.

A plaintiff's entitlement to an injunction requires the complaint to
allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for an injunction
while establishing that an injunction is reasonably necessary to protect
the legal rights of the plaintiff during the litigation. Transcont'l Gas
Pipe Line Corp. v. Porter, 252 S.C. 478, 480-81, 167 S.E.2d 313, 315
(1969). Generally, to obtain an injunction, a party must demonstrate
irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, and an
inadequate remedy at law. Roach v. Combined Util. Comm'n, 290 S.C. 437,
442, 351 S.E.2d 168, 170 (Ct.App. 1986).

While the harm caused by the dogs invading FOC Lawshe's property is
likely to continue, we believe the trial judge did not abuse his
discretion in refusing to grant the temporary injunction. A requisite
level of control must be shown in order to find an owner liable for the
actions of a lessee who causes a nuisance to an adjoining property
owner. Peden, 155 S.C at 19, 151 S.E. at 912. In Peden, the lease
provided that the landowner maintained control of the maintenance of the
baseball park. Moreover, the court found the lease gave the landowner
control over the height of the fence, and the landowner could have taken
several steps to prevent baseballs from traveling into the neighboring
property. Id.
Page 417

Looking beyond the face of the complaint, we find conflicting evidence
in the record concerning whether International Paper maintained complete
control over the activities taking place on its lands. FOC Lawshe alleges
that International Paper maintained control over its lands and the
activities thereon. In support of this allegation, the record indicates
that International Paper created buffer zones between its lands and FOC
Lawshe's lands in an attempt to limit the trespassing by the dogs.
However, FOC Lawshe's own affidavits, as well as one submitted by
International Paper, suggest International Paper may not have control
over its lessees' hunting activities. The affidavit by Steven Fisher,
president of FOC Lawshe, states:

I am informed and believe that [International Paper]
has agreed with the Sand Hill Hunting Club and the
Pine Island Hunting Club to allow each club to have
the right to hunt deer on certain areas, assigned to
each club, on the lands owned by it. Except for the
permitted hunting thereon, I am informed and believe
that [International Paper] retains the right to and
does control the premises and activities thereon.

(emphasis added).

Peden requires a finding of complete control before the landlord may be
held liable. At this point in the action, the issue of complete control
remains unadjudicated. See County of Richland v. Simpkins, 348 S.C. 664,
670, 560 S.E.2d 902, 905 (Ct.App. 2002). Whether International Paper
retained complete control over its lands is a question of fact, and it is
for the finder of fact to weigh the conflicting evidence in the record.
The fact finder must first decide whether International Paper retained
complete control before the court can justify imposing an injunction
prohibiting the use of hunting dogs on International Paper's property.
Because the issue of control has not been adjudicated, no injunction is
needed, at this time, to preserve the status quo. Id. at 671,
560 S.E.2d at 906
(finding the operation of an alleged sexually oriented business
could not be enjoined without first adjudicating whether the business had
actually violated an ordinance because to do so would not preserve the
parties' positions pending a decision on the merits). Because there is
conflicting evidence in the record, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying
Page 418
FOC Lawshe's motion for a temporary injunction. Zabinski,
346 S.C. at 601, 553 S.E.2d at 121.

CONCLUSION

We find the trial judge correctly denied International Paper's motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. The complaint alleges facts
sufficient to support a cause of action in nuisance. Additionally, we
find the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying FOC Lawshe's
motion for a temporary injunction. Accordingly, the decisions of the
trial judge are

AFFIRMED.

[stretcharmstrong]

ummm... what in fuk did you just say?

[BEAR]

I've had the same problem with guys running dogs on property over a mile from mine. They had permission to run dogs where they are, but they had no plan to stop them at the end of that property. The result, they let them run through my neighbor's property and they tromp right on through my place. It's only 160 acres and is divided by a road, but damn I work hard to keep the deer on my place happy and not pressured, and these assholes come through my place. Armed at that!! They'd park on the road and walk onto my place looking for dogs!! I've had shouting matches with a few of them, and they are nothing but assholes!! No, not all guys who run dogs are like that. I run bears with dogs in North Carolina, and you can't find a better bunch of guys. My neighbor is an older gentleman, and he and his son got fed up with it too, and they waited out the guys one day two years ago, and took out 6 dogs. Talking about all hell breaking loose. I was sitting a stand three years ago, and the damn dogs came through chasing after a small 8 pt. The next thing I know, I hear a car horn and brakes lockin' up. The damn dogs run the deer right out in front of the car!!! That buck would of been a good one this year. DNR had been called on this situation in the past, (we haven't had the guys around since the dog shoot) but the most they would do, is come and sit the property after they were tired of hearing our bitching. (Dont get me wrong, DNR does a great job, and my main problems aren't their only problems. They are busy too) They never came on the right days however. It finally came to a head in an unfortunate way, and the family who leased the land to the guys finally got sick of us complaining to them about their abuse of the right to run the dogs, and denied the guys the option to lease it again. It is an extremely frustrating situation. I know my arms felt tied for a while. Just don't take the law into your own hands. (Unless you have shallow graves already dug.)

[Huntman]

Send the owner of the land a nice letter from your lawyer stating that your only option will be a civil lawsuit if their leasor's dogs leave thier property.

[BigBrother]

I am suprised this hasnt come up before now...

[coonsqualler98]

Roger that BB. The presidential emphasis put me over the top.

[KRT]

Yeah, I thought about this thread coming up the other day BB. It then made me think of Cpiper........

BTW when are you going to report it?

[BigBrother]

I will give it three days or so.

[SCTIMBER]

I am suprised this hasnt come up before now...

I was looking for it when I saw your post. This will be a long thread.

Capt. Fish will be present tommorrow