nuisance

Question 1

nuisance

Answer 1

a substantial & unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land

Question 2

substantial factors to consider

Answer 2

factors:
- The interference must be above the threshold that a reasonable person would tolerate
- The effect it would have on a normal person of ordinary habits & sensibilities
- Persons of normal sensitivities would consider the interference to be substantial

Question 3

reasonableness factors

Answer 3

factors:
- Place where ∆’s business was conducted
- Manner in which the business was conducted
- Circumstances under which ∆ operates
- Character of the neighborhood
- Nature of the alleged wrong
- Unusual sensitivity
- First to the location → coming to the nuisance
- Manner in which business was conducted

Question 4

trespass

Answer 4

Unprivileged & intentional intrusion on property possessed by another, unless it is:
- Privileged
- By necessity
- Supported by public policy

Question 5

private nuisance

Answer 5

substantial and unreasonable interference with the use & enjoyment of the land of another

Question 6

factors to consider in finding nuisance

Answer 6

factors:
- The extent of the harm
- The character of the harm
- The economic & social value of the conflicting activities
- The suitability of the activities for the location
- The ability of either party to avoid the conflict, practicability & fairness of making the party to do

Question 7

injunction

Answer 7

() as remedy if → harm to the πs outweighs the social utility of the ∆’s conduct, ∆ can avoid the harm w/o undue hardship, ∆’s activity is not suited for the area

Question 8

damages

Answer 8

() remedy if ∆ provides significant social utility & cannot prevent the nuisance

Question 9

dobbs v wiggins holding

Answer 9

To maintain a claim for private nuisance, a plaintiff must prove that the alleged invasion of the plaintiff’s right to use or enjoy his or her property is substantial, intentional or negligent, and unreasonable

Question 10

public nuisance

Answer 10

an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public

Question 11

boomer v atlantic cement holding

Answer 11

Permanent damages, rather than an injunction, are appropriate when the damages resulting from a nuisance are significantly less than the economic benefit derived from the party causing the harm

Question 12

fontainebleau v forty-five holding

Answer 12

A property owner may be prevented only from causing injury to a neighbor’s rights to property that are protected by law, and there is no legal right to the flow of air and light from a neighboring property