IX. THE LAW OF NUISANCE (779-808) Flashcards
sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
Legal Maxim Guiding Common Law: one should use one’s own property in such a way as not to injure the property of another
Does nuisance law extend to personal property?
NO, must affect your use and enjoyment of the LAND, so you must have a property interest in land that is being impinged (Leasehold is sufficient).
Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.
peNN (2x a week)
Holding: ∆s substantially and unreasonably interfered with use and enjoyment of πs’ land; since ∆s plan on continuing operation into the future, which will cause irreparable damage, injunction is proper remedy to protect πs against irreparable injury.
Facts: ∆ began to operate oil refinery near πs’ land after π bought land. Two or three days a week the refinery emits nauseating gases and odors in great quantities that would render persons of ordinary sensibilities to be sick and constitute a nuisance.
Private Nuisance
Conduct that causes substantial interference with the private use and enjoyment of land and is either (i) intentional and unreasonable; or (ii) the unintentional result of negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous activity. Restatement 2nd of Torts (RST §821)
Level of Interference Approach to intentional nuisance
inquiry into reasonableness focuses on level of interference (it should not be permitted above certain threshold) (Jost v. Dairyland Power Coop.: court excluded evidence of whether the utility of ∆’s power plant outweighed claim of a small farmer)
Is depreciation of property value enough by itself to constitute a nuisance?
No because it does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land
Is cutting off a neighbor’s sunlight considered a nuisance?
Older cases hold that cutting off a neighbor’s sunlight is not a nuisance, but more modern cases have held blocking a neighbor’s solar collectors can be considered a nuisance.
Right to Lateral Support vs. Right to Subjacent Support
Right to Lateral Support - support provided to one piece of land by the parcels of land surrounding it, imposes a duty to provide support that a parcel would receive under natural conditions; the some jurisdictions do not extend this right to buildings or other structures on the land. (STRICT LIABILITY)
Right to Subjacent Support - Right to support from underneath as opposed to the sides; arises when one person own surface rights and another owns a subsurface right, such as a mineral interest.
Coasean logic in remedies for nuisance
Coasean logic: Since the market will move the right to the highest valued use, it doesn’t matter who gets the initial allocation of the right (entitlement), because the person who values right more will win out.
o If court grants an injunction, it doesn’t necessarily mean the defendant has to stop the activity, just has to buy the injunction at some value in between harm done to plaintiff by nuisance and harm done to defendant by shutting down.
o Gains of the Trade: If the damage to A is $50, and B’s cost of avoiding the harm is $100, A will sell his right to B somewhere between $50 and $100 and both parties will gain from the trade.
o Criticism: Assumes no transaction costs, and that people will act rationally.
Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz
Estancias - apts in SD, need A/C
Holding: There does not exist a great social benefit such that granting the injunction would cause great harm to ∆s.
Facts: ∆s own apartment complex and installed air conditioner at border between their land and π’s land; unit is extremely loud and π claims it has driven down property values from $25,000 to $10,000; ∆’s claim it will cost $150,000-$200,000 to change air conditioning infrastructure and that AC is necessary to rent buildings; thus the injunction would be inequitable.
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.
Holding: Court issues injunction with provision that cement plant could prevent injunction by paying damages set by court (not negotiated by πs because this would lead to extortion and high transaction costs.)
∆ operates a large cement plant; πs (sizable number of πs) allege injury to their property from the dirt, smoke and vibrations emanating from the plant. Although the πs were clearly harmed, the damage that would result to the cement plant by issuing an injunction is even greater because it would force the plant to shut down (loss of $40 million). Court realizes that air pollution arising from industry is a big problem, but the judicial establishment is not well equipped to handle it. Court found ∆ had an intentional and unreasonable invasion
How are the holdings of Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. and Johnson v. M’Intosh similar?
similar in that problem is too big for court to solve even if that is in interest of fairness
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb Development Co.
Court says that granting the permanent injunction of the operation of the feedlot was appropriate, but that the Del Webb must indemnify Spur for the cost of moving or shutting down. When injury is slight, remedy for minor inconveniences is damages rather than injunction.
Facts: Del Webb’s predecessors in interest began developing feedlots in 1956; in 1959 Del Webb began to plan the development of an urban area to be known as Sun City. Spur began expanding north and Del Webb expanded south until the development is only a mile from the 1 million pounds of manure. Issue is whether or not plaintiff must be enjoined from using the feedlots when the defendant chose to develop in a previously agricultural area.
Public Nuisance
A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
Underlying basis of liability are the same as those for private nuisance (must be a substantial harm caused by intentional and unreasonable conduct or by conduct that is unintentional but negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous).
Special injury requirement for public nuisance
Any member of the public who is affected by the nuisance may sue but only if they can show a “special injury” different from that suffered by other members of the public.
