Pestey v. Cushman

Opinion

The issues in this common-law private nuisance action arise out of the defendants’ operation of a dairy farm near the plaintiffs’ home. The principal issues in this appeal are whether: (1) the trial *347court properly instructed the jury with respect to the unreasonableness element of the common-law private nuisance claim; (2) a property owner may testify as to the reason for the diminution in value of his or her property; (3) the trial court properly admitted, under the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule, evidence from a livestock waste management handbook; and (4) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the operation of the defendants’ farm was the proximate cause of the offensive odors that affected the plaintiffs’ property. We answer all four questions in the affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiffs, James Pestey and Joan Pestey, brought this action against the defendants, Nathan R. Cushman, Nathan P. Cushman and Cushman Farms Limited Partnership, seeking money damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. After a lengthy trial, the jury returned a partial verdict for the plaintiffs for $100,000 in damages. See footnote 2 of this opinion. The trial court denied all of the defendants’ posttrial motions, and rendered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The plaintiffs’ home is situated on property they own located along the west side of Route 87 in North Franklin. The defendants own and conduct farming operations on a large tract of land on the opposite side of Route 87, approximately one third of one mile north of the plaintiffs’ property. In 1990, the defendants constructed a 42,000 square foot free stall barn and milking parlor on their land to house a herd of dairy cows and a pit in which to store the manure generated by the herd.

The plaintiffs first noticed objectionable odors emanating from the defendants’ farm in early 1991, after *348the construction of the new bam. The odors were, at first, nothing more than the typical stercoraceous odors generated by a farm containing livestock. Over time, however, the odors became substantially more pungent and their character changed as they took on a sharp, burnt smell. In 1997, the defendants installed an anaerobic digestion system on their farm to process the manure generated by the dairy herd. The system was designed to mimic in a controlled manner the anaerobic process that occurs in nature. Under this process, manure is fed into the digester, which, through the use of high temperature and bacteria, breaks the organic compound into its constituent parts. The end result of a properly functioning anaerobic digestion process is the production of a low odor biosolid and a gaseous mixture that can be used as an energy source to power the digester’s generators. Following the installation of the digester, the character of the odors affecting the plaintiffs’ property changed again, becoming more acrid and evincing the smells of sulphur and sewage. This change was caused by the digester being either undersized or overloaded, which resulted in partially digested, higher odor manure being released at the end of the anaerobic digestion process. At times, the odors emanating from the defendants’ farm were so strong that the smell would awaken the plaintiffs during the night, forcing them to close the windows of their home. Further facts will be set forth where relevant.

The plaintiffs commenced this action in three counts seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. In the first count of the amended complaint, sounding in common-law private nuisance, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ farm generated offensive odors that unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property. The plaintiffs further alleged in this count that the defendants’ farm operation was not entitled to the protections of General *349Statutes § 19U-341,1 which concerns the right to farm and protects farms from nuisance claims, because the odors resulted from the defendants’ negligent operation of their farm. Only this first count was ultimately submitted to the jury to decide.2

In addition to returning a plaintiffs’ verdict, the jury answered interrogatories demonstrating that it specifically found that the offensive odors emanating from the defendants’ farm unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property, that the interference was continuous, and that the odors had a natural tendency to inflict harm by interfering with the plain*350tiffs’ use of their property. The jury further found that the defendants’ farm operation was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ loss of enjoyment of their property and that the defendants’ use of their property was either unreasonable or unlawful. Lastly, the jury found that § 19a-341 did not apply because the plaintiffs had proven that the offensive odors produced by the defendants’ farm were the result of the defendants’ negligence in the operation of their farm. After the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict,3 this appeal followed.

The defendants raise six claims on appeal. They assert that the trial court improperly: (1) instructed the jury with regard to the unreasonableness element of the private nuisance claim; (2) admitted the testimony of the plaintiff James Pestey regarding the diminution in value of the plaintiffs’ property as a result of the nuisance; (3) admitted, under the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule, a portion of a certain livestock waste management handbook; (4) found the cumulative evidence sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the defendants’ farm operation was the cause of the offensive odors experienced by the plaintiffs; (5) instructed the jury with regard to the application of § 19a-341; and (6) excluded, based on the best evidence rule, certain expert testimony concerning a second livestock waste management handbook. With respect to the first four claims raised by the defendants, we conclude that they are without merit. With respect to the last two claims, we do not reach their merits because, for the reasons explained hereinafter, we conclude that they were not properly preserved.

*351I

We first address the defendants’ claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury with regard to the unreasonableness element of the nuisance claim. Specifically, the defendants argue that the trial court’s instruction to the juiy was improper because it failed to instruct the jury adequately with respect to the balancing of interests that must be performed in deciding whether a use of property is unreasonable. The defendants contend that, although the trial court correctly instructed the jury to consider a multiplicity of factors in determining whether the defendants’ use of their property was unreasonable, the court did not adequately instruct the juiy to consider the defendants’ legitimate interest in using their property.4 We conclude that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on this issue was proper under the law both as expressed in our prior decisions and as clarified herein.

The standard of review for a challenge to the propriety of a jury instruction is well established. “[J]ury instructions are to be read as a whole, and instructions claimed to be improper are read in the context of the entire charge. ... A juiy charge is to be considered from the standpoint of its effect on the jury in guiding it to a correct verdict. . . . The test to determine if a jury charge is proper is whether it fairly presents the case to the juiy in such a way that injustice is not done to either party under the established rules of law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20, 27, 761 A.2d 1268 (2000).

In order to analyze properly the defendants’ claim, we must reexamine and clarify the elements that a plaintiff must prove to prevail on a claim for damages *352in a common-law private nuisance cause of action. Specifically, we must clarify two sources of confusion. First, we must distinguish the concept of unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property from the concept of an unreasonable use of property. Second, we must reaffirm the distinction between private and public nuisance actions.

“A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.” 4 Restatement (Second), Torts § 821D (1979); see also Herbert v. Smyth, 155 Conn. 78, 81, 230 A.2d 235 (1967). The law of private nuisance springs from the general principle that “[i]t is the duty of every person to make a reasonable use of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary damage or annoyance to his neighbor.” Nailor v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc., 117 Conn. 241, 245, 167 A. 548 (1933). “The essence of a private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land.” W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th Ed. 1984) § 87, p. 619.

The defendants’ claim is based on the principle of private nuisance law that, in determining unreasonableness, “[consideration must be given not only to the interests of the person harmed but also [to] the interests of the actor and to the interests of the community as a whole.” 4 Restatement (Second), supra, § 826, comment (c); see also Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, 250 Conn. 443, 456-57, 736 A.2d 811 (1999). “Determining unreasonableness is essentially a weighing process, involving a comparative evaluation of conflicting interests . . . .”4 Restatement (Second), supra, § 826, comment (c); Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 456; Maykut v. Plasko, 170 Conn. 310, 314, 365 A.2d 1114 (1976); O’Neill v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 156 Conn. 613, 617-18, 244 A.2d 372 (1968). Unreasonableness cannot be determined in the abstract, but, *353rather, must be judged under the circumstances of the particular case. Wetstone v. Cantor, 144 Conn. 77, 80, 127 A.2d 70 (1956).

In determining the propriety of the jury instructions regarding the unreasonableness element in this case, we look to our recent decision in Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 250 Conn. 443, in which the plaintiff had sought damages in common-law private nuisance for odors and insects emanating from a sewage treatment plant owned by the defendant town. With regard to this element, the trial court in Walsh had instructed the jury as follows: “[Y]ou must decide whether the use the town was making of the property was a reasonable use. . . . Now, that’s not to suggest that the mere use of the property for a [sewage] treatment plant is reasonable or unreasonable. Clearly, that’s a reasonable use of property and the plaintiffs don’t claim otherwise.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 450. The trial court further explained: “If you find that the plant is producing odors—or was or is producing odors or insects, that is the use of the property that you will find that is either reasonable or unreasonable. [The] [plaintiffs must prove that the use of the property as they have proven the property to . . . have been used was unreasonable . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. On appeal, this court held that the trial court’s charge to the jury was proper because the instructions “conveyed to the jury that it was to take into consideration and weigh the conflicting interests involved.” Id., 457; accord Maykut v. Plasko, supra, 170 Conn. 315 (trial court applied proper test where facts described in findings included consideration of interests of both plaintiff and defendants).

In the present case, the trial court instructed the jury with respect to the unreasonableness element of the nuisance claim in the following manner: “You must also *354ask yourselves whether the defendants’ use of their property [was] reasonable. A use which is permitted or even required by law and which does not violate local land use restrictions may nonetheless be unreasonable and create a common-law nuisance. You must . . . consider and weigh . . . the location of the defendants’ dairy farm, the size of the farm, the manner in which they operate the farm, including their handling and maintenance of the manure, the free stall barn, the milking parlors and the anaerobic manure digester and associated equipment and any other circumstance which you find proven which indicates whether the defendants [were] making a reasonable use of their property.” The court stated further: “The question is not whether the plaintiffs or the defendants would regard the condition as unreasonable, but whether reasonable persons generally looking at the whole situation impartially and objectively would consider it [to] be reasonable.”

As the charge indicates, the trial court instructed the jury to consider a multiplicity of factors in determining the unreasonableness element. The defendants’ argument that the instruction did not adequately instruct the jury to consider the defendants’ interests assumes that the factors set forth by the trial court only regard the pla.iutiffs’ interests. Such an assumption is unwarranted. The jury, for instance, was instructed to consider the location of the farm in making its finding regarding reasonableness. The location of the farm as a factor inherently includes the interests of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the jury was just as entitled to find that the location of the farm tended to show that the defendants’ use was reasonable as it was to find that the location tended to show that the defendants’ use was unreasonable. In addition, the trial court explicitly instructed the jury to consider any other circumstances that it found proven that would indicate *355“whether the defendants [were] making a reasonable use of their property.” This instruction underscored the trial court’s previous instruction that the jury was to consider various factors in reaching its decision, including factors relating to the interests of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Although the trial court did not instruct the jury that the mere use of the property for a dairy farm was clearly a reasonable use if considered in a vacuum, as had the trial court in Walsh with respect to the wastewater treatment plant in that case; see Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 250 Conn. 450; the trial court’s charge nonetheless provided the jury with adequate guidance with which to reach its verdict.

Although the trial court’s jury charge was proper under Walsh and the decisions upon which Walsh relied, a thorough review of the law of nuisance reveals that this area of the law has been prone to confusion, and our case law has been no exception. Our nuisance jurisprudence has become muddled and is in need of clarification. Only after we clarify this area of the law can we determine fully whether the jury charge in this case was proper.

“There is perhaps no more impenetrable jungle in the entire law than that which surrounds the word ‘nuisance.’ ” W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 86, p. 616. This court has stated often that a plaintiff must prove four elements to succeed in a nuisance cause of action: “(1) the condition complained of had a natural tendency to create danger and inflict injury upon person or property; (2) the danger created was a continuing one; (3) the use of the land was unreasonable or unlawful; [and] (4) the existence of the nuisance was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 250 Conn. 449 n.4, quoting Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 176 Conn. *35633, 35-36, 404 A.2d 889 (1978); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177, 183, 527 A.2d 688 (1987); see also Kostyal v. Cass, 163 Conn. 92, 99-100, 302 A.2d 121 (1972). These elements developed through a long line of cases that can be described best as public nuisance cases.5 See, e.g., DeLahunta v. Waterbury, 134 Conn. 630, 631, 59 A.2d 800 (1948) (passengers in automobile brought nuisance action for damages against defendant municipality for injuries sustained when car in which they were riding struck concrete traffic stanchion installed by defendant); Prifty v. Waterbury, 133 Conn. 654, 655, 54 A.2d 260 (1947) (plaintiffs brought nuisance claim against defendant municipality for injuries sustained by child when ornamental cannon in public park fell); Hoffman v. Bristol, 113 Conn. 386, 387, 155 A. 499 (1931) (plaintiff brought nuisance claim against defendant municipality seeking to recover for injuries sustained from jumping off diving board in shallow water at pond owned and maintained by defendant).

Despite its grounding in public nuisance law, this four factor analysis has since been applied without distinction to both public and private nuisance causes of action. See, e.g., Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 250 Conn. 449 n.4; Quinnett v. Newman, 213 Conn. 343, 348-49, 568 A.2d 786 (1990); Marchitto v. West Haven, 150 Conn. 432, 437, 190 A.2d *357597 (1963). Although there are some similarities between a public and a private nuisance, the two causes of action are distinct. Indeed, Professors Prosser and Keeton in their treatise on the law of torts have stated: “The two have almost nothing in common, except that each causes inconvenience to someone, and it would have been fortunate if they had been called from the beginning by different names.” W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 86, p. 618. Public nuisance law is concerned with the interference with a public right, and cases in this realm typically involve conduct that allegedly interferes with the public health and safety. See, e.g., Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135, 162-63, 676 A.2d 795 (1996) (public nuisance law encompasses conduct detrimental to public health and safety); Beckwith v. Stratford, 129 Conn. 506, 507, 29 A.2d 775 (1942) (plaintiff brought nuisance action against defendant municipality for injuries sustained in fall allegedly caused by defectively constructed sidewalk).

Private nuisance law, on the other hand, is concerned with conduct that interferes with an individual’s private right to the use and enjoyment of his or her land. Showing the existence of a condition detrimental to the public safety, or, as the first two elements of the four factor analysis discussed previously require, showing that the condition complained of had a natural tendency to create a continuing danger, is often irrelevant to a private nuisance claim. In light of the fundamental differences between these two distinct causes of action, we conclude that further attempts to employ the four part test discussed previously herein in the assessment of private nuisance causes of action would be imprudent; private nuisance claims simply do not fit comfortably within the same analytical rubric as public nuisance claims. We must restate, therefore, the elements that a plaintiff *358must prove to prevail on a claim for damages in a common-law private nuisance action.6

In prescribing these specific elements, we look to the leading authorities in the field of common-law private nuisance for guidance. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) there was an invasion of the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of his or her property; (2) the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the invasion; and (3) the invasion was either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and the defendant’s conduct was negligent or reckless. 4 Restatement (Second), supra, § 822. Although the language used in this third element does not make the point clearly, under this test, showing unreasonableness is an essential element of a private nuisance cause of action based on negligence or recklessness. See id., § 822, comment (k). Professors Prosser and Keeton define the plaintiffs burden in a similar manner. According to their view, a plaintiff in a private nuisance action must demonstrate that: (1) the defendant acted with the intent of interfering with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of his or her property; (2) the interference with the use and enjoyment of the land was of the kind intended; (3) the interference was substantial; and (4) the interference was unreasonable. W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 87, p. 622-25. In the context of a private nuisance, they define a defendant’s intent as meaning merely that “the defendant has created or continued the condition causing the interference with full knowledge that the harm to the plaintiffs interests are occurring or are substantially certain to follow.” Id., 625.

*359This requirement of unreasonableness, a part of the third element in the test set forth in the Restatement (Second) and the fourth element in the test enunciated by Professors Prosser and Keeton, often has been stated, not in terms of whether the interference was unreasonable, but, rather, in terms of whether the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable. See, e.g., Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 250 Conn. 446 (determining whether defendants’ operation of wastewater treatment plant was “ ‘unreasonable use’ ”). In its charge to the jury, the trial court in the present case framed the inquiry in such a manner.

Although similar, “[t]he two concepts—unreasonable interference and unreasonable conduct—are not at all identical.” W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 87, p. 623. “Confusion has resulted from the fact that the . . . interference with the plaintiff’s use of his property can be unreasonable even when the defendant’s conduct is reasonable. . . . Courts have often found the existence of a nuisance on the basis of unreasonable use when what was meant is that the interference was unreasonable, i.e., it was unreasonable for the defendant to act as he did without paying for the harm that was knowingly inflicted on the plaintiff. Thus, an industrial enterprise who properly locates a cement plant or a coal-burning electric generator, who exercises utmost care in the utilization of known scientific techniques for minimizing the harm from the emission of noxious smoke, dust and gas and who is serving society well by engaging in the activity may yet be required to pay for the inevitable harm caused to neighbors.” Id., § 88, p. 629. As this example amply demonstrates, while an unreasonable use and an unreasonable interference often coexist, the two concepts are not equivalent, and it is possible to prove that a defendant’s use of his property, while reasonable, nonetheless constitutes a common-law private nuisance because it unreasonably interferes with the *360use of property by another person. That was the situation in Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 250 Conn. 443.

In Walsh, this court rejected the defendants’ argument on appeal that their operation of the wastewater treatment plant in question could not constitute a nuisance since the operation of such a plant was clearly a reasonable use of property. Id., 457. This court held that the production of odors by the defendants’ plant could constitute a nuisance, notwithstanding the fact that operating a wastewater treatment plant was clearly a reasonable use of the property in question. Id. Although the proposition was not stated expressly in Walsh, our holding in that case demonstrates that, while the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct is a factor in determining whether an interference is unreasonable, it is not an independent element that must be proven in order to prevail in all private nuisance causes of action. The inquiry is cast more appropriately as whether the defendant’s conduct unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of his or her land rather than whether the defendant’s conduct was itself unreasonable. Quinnett v. Newman, supra, 213 Conn. 348 (nuisance refers to condition that exists and not to act that creates it). The proper focus of a private nuisance claim for damages, therefore, is whether a defendant’s conduct, i.e., his or her use of his or her property, causes an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of his or her property. Herberts. Smyth, supra, 155 Conn. 81-82; see also Scribner v. Summers, 84 F.3d 554, 559 (2d Cir. 1996); Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 570, 362 N.E.2d 968, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, reconsideration denied, 42 N.Y.2d 1102 (1977).

On the basis of our reexamination of our case law and upon our review of private nuisance law as described by *361the leading authorities, we adopt the basic principles of § 822 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and conclude that in order to recover damages in a common-law private nuisance cause of action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of his or her property. The interference may be either intentional; Quinnett v. Newman, supra, 213 Conn. 348 (nuisance is created intentionally if defendant intends act that brings about condition found to be nuisance); or the result of the defendant’s negligence. Id., 348-49. Whether the interference is unreasonable depends upon a balancing of the interests involved under the circumstances of each individual case. In balancing the interests, the fact finder must take into consideration all relevant factors, including the nature of both the interfering use and the use and enjoyment invaded, the nature, extent and duration of the interference, the suitability for the locality of both the interfering conduct and the particular use and enjoyment invaded, whether the defendant is taking all feasible precautions to avoid any unnecessary interference with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of his or her property, and any other factors that the fact finder deems relevant to the question of whether the interference is unreasonable. No one factor should dominate this balancing of interests; all relevant factors must be considered in determining whether the interference is unreasonable.

The determination of whether the interference is unreasonable should be made in light of the fact that some level of interference is inherent in modern society. There are few, if any, places remaining where an individual may rest assured that he will be able to use and enjoy his property free from all interference. Accordingly, the interference must be substantial to be unreasonable. *362See 4 Restatement (Second), supra, § 822, comment (g); W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 88, p. 626.

Ultimately, the question of reasonableness is whether the interference is beyond that which the plaintiff should bear, under all of the circumstances of the particular case, without being compensated. See Walsh v. Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority, supra, 250 Conn. 458-59; see also 4 Restatement (Second), supra, § 822, comment (g), and § 826, comment (e); W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 88, p. 629. With these standards in mind, we turn to the present case.

In reaching its verdict, the jury completed a set of interrogatories provided by the trial court. Each interrogatory asked the jury whether the plaintiffs had proven a specific element of the private nuisance claim, and the jury answered each interrogatory affirmatively. The first interrogatory asked: “Did the plaintiffs prove [that] the defendants’ dairy farm produced odors which unreasonably interfered with [the] plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property?” This interrogatory correctly captured the crux of a common-law private nuisance cause of action for damages, i.e., whether the defendants’ conduct unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property. It correctly stated that the focus in such a cause of action is on the reasonableness of the interference and not on the use that is causing the interference. In light of this conclusion, the fourth interrogatory, which involved the unreasonable use element that is at issue in this case, was superfluous. The fourth interrogatory asked: “Did the plaintiffs prove the defendants’ use of their property is either unreasonable or unlawful?” As our previous discussion herein demonstrates, a plaintiff seeking damages in a common-law private nuisance cause of action is not required to prove that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable. Rather, the plaintiff must show that the interference with his or her property was unreasonable. The fourth *363interrogatory, therefore, in effect, required the plaintiffs to prove an additional, nonessential element to prevail on their claim. We conclude that the jury interrogatories and the jury charge, considered together, properly informed the jury of the necessary elements of a common-law private nuisance cause of action for damages and provided the jury with adequate guidance with which to reach its verdict. Accordingly, the trial court’s jury charge was proper under the law as clarified herein.

II

We next address the defendants’ claim that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the testimony of James Pestey regarding the diminution in value of his property. Specifically, the defendants claim that, although it was proper for the trial court to allow James Pestey to give his opinion as to the value of his property both before and after the defendants began their farm operation, it was improper to allow him to testify that, in his opinion, the offensive odors created by the defendants’ farm were the cause of the property’s diminution in value. We disagree.

At trial, James Pestey testified that, in his opinion, the value of his property had been $585,000 in 1990, before the defendants began their farm operation, but was only $330,000 at the time of trial, in 1999. He testified further that the diminution in value of his property was, in his opinion, the result of the offensive odors emanating from the defendants’ farm.

In deciding this issue, we are guided by our decision in Tessmann v. Tiger Lee Construction Co., 228 Conn. 42, 634 A.2d 870 (1993). In Tessmann, the plaintiffs brought an action alleging that the defendants’ substandard construction of the plaintiffs’ house diminished its value. After the trial court excluded the testimony and report of the plaintiffs’ only expert witness on the issue of the diminution in value, the plaintiffs testified *364themselves as to their opinion regarding the value of their house as it was, compared to what it would have been worth had the defendants properly constructed it. Id., 46. In determining whether it was proper for the trial court to allow such testimony, this court reiterated the long established rule that “[i]t is undisputed that homeowners are qualified to testify as to their personal opinion regarding the value, or diminution in value, of their properties.” Id., 47; see McCahill v. Town & Country Associates, Ltd., 185 Conn. 37, 41, 440 A.2d 801 (1981). This rule “reflects . . . the common experience that an owner is familiar with her property and knows what it is worth.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Simino, 200 Conn. 113, 120, 509 A.2d 1039 (1986).

The plaintiffs in Tessmann were allowed to testify as to the value of their property as it then existed, compared to what its value would have been if the defendants had properly constructed the house. Tessmann v. Tiger Lee Construction Co., supra, 228 Conn. 46. Implicit in the plaintiffs’ testimony in Tessmann was the fact that the defendants’ substandard construction of the plaintiffs’ house was the cause of its decreased value. In the present case, James Pestey was allowed to testify as to his opinion of the value of his property both before and after offensive odors began emanating from the defendants’ farm. After testifying that the value of his property had diminished since the odors began, he made explicit the causal connection implied by his testimony by testifying further that, in his opinion, the offensive odors were the cause of his property’s diminished value. We conclude that under