equal to the task.” Merrill v. Taylor, 72 Tex. 293, 10 S.W. 532, 534 (1888). Both parties presented evidence to show when the nuisance began. The jury could have determined that the nuisance began in 1994, 1998, or never at all. The jury weighed the evidence and found that the claim accrued in 1998, and we agree with the court of appeals that legally sufficient evidence supports that finding. III. Damages The jury awarded the landowners damages for the decrease in property value the nuisance caused. The Company challenges the evidence supporting those awards. A. The Property Owner Rule If a nuisance is permanent, a landowner may recover the property’s lost market value. See Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 147 S.W.3d at 276; Pickens v. Harrison, 151 Tex. 562, 252 S.W.2d 575, 582 (1952) (<HOLDING>). This normally requires a comparison of market
holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding that where the customary measure of damages for a vendors failure or refusal to convey land was inapplicable the measure of damages must be flexible enough to vary with the necessities of the situation holding that even though the complaint sought money damages and land was actually recovered the attorneys lien attached to the land holding that if respondents suit is one for permanent damages to the land the measure of damages is the decreased value of the land holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land