Private Land Use Controls: Nuisance Flashcards
Nuisance elements
Substantial, Non-trespassory invasion, of another’s property interest, caused by unreasonable conduct
Substantial element
consistent and caused harm
Something that is significant or important, as opposed to minor or unimportant )
NT invasion
Non-physical or a minor physical interference with someone’s property rights (dust, sound, vibrations, smell)
Use cases to show it does or does not meet requirement
of another’s property interest
Is the subject being prevented from consuming or exercising an identifiable property right?
Reasonable element
-What are competing uses here?
-Would ordinary people refrain from using their property in any of these ways?
How do we determine what land nuisances are considered unreasonable?
- Restatement: does the gravity of harm outweigh the utility of the actor’s conduct?
-Considerations: suitability of act for location, social value of acts, cost to stop, extent and character of harm
- Corrective Justice- interferer must stop
-Who was first? (watch out for owner living there first and then starting band)
- Efficiency theory- who is the cheapest to stop?
Morgan v. High Penn (Abate the activity with injunctive relief )
Facts: action for damages for private nuisance and for an injunction
Plaintiff’s have composite tract with one house for a dwelling and one for a restaurant and accommodations for trailers
They had been renting them out and keeping people in their house (they have been here since 1945)
Oil Company operated a refinery since 1950 1,000 feet from dwelling of plaintiffs
Other places within a mile include a church, grocery store, 29 houses, etc… nursery
Allegations: for some hours two to three days out of the week refinery nauseating emitted gasses and orders (impairing use and enjoyment)
Plaintiffs gave notice and demand for them to stop and they didn’t
PH: jury found for the plaintiffs and damages were 2,500 along with an injunction by the judge
Holding: Yes. A party who intentionally and unreasonably commits a non trespassory invasion of another’s land can be held liable for private nuisance, even if the party was not negligent. Liability for nuisance is proper if the invasion was intentional and unreasonable, but liability is also proper for unintentional invasions if the invasion is the result of negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct. An invasion is intentional if the party acts for the purpose of causing the invasion, knows that the invasion is caused by the party’s conduct, or knows that it is substantially certain to result from the conduct. Nuisance can result from non-negligent conduct if a party is under an absolute duty to desist. In this case, High Penn argued that its refinery’s emissions could not be a private nuisance because there was no evidence at trial that its operations were conducted negligently. Even if there was no evidence of negligence, High Penn can be held liable for private nuisance. High Penn intentionally and unreasonably invaded Morgan’s property with toxic fumes, thus preventing Morgan from using and enjoying the land. Thus, Morgan had a cause of action for private nuisance, even absent a showing of negligence. High Penn is likely to continue its activities, and an injunction is warranted to ensure the nuisance is abated. The evidence is sufficient to defeat High Penn’s motion for a compulsory nonsuit. A new trial is granted based on faulty jury instructions.
Rule: A party who intentionally and unreasonably commits a Non trespassory invasion of another’s land can be held liable for private nuisance, even if the party was not negligent.
Estancias Dallas Corp v. Schultz (Abate the activity with injunctive relief )
Facts: for injunction
Plaintiffs: Shultz and wife complained about the air conditioning and tower (of apartment complex) next to their residence, 55 feet from back door and 5 feet from property line
Defendants said they failed to balance the equities
PH: jury found for plaintiffs (9000 for wife and husband 1000 from discomfort, inconvenience, and annoyance)
Holding: Yes. For a private nuisance, an injunction is an appropriate remedy if a balancing of the equities shows that the injunction will prevent more harm than it will cause. Once a private nuisance’s existence has been established, the next step is to determine the appropriate remedy: monetary damages or an injunction. A court may issue an injunction only if a balancing of the equities supports that remedy. Specifically, the court must balance two potential injuries against each other: (1) the injury to the plaintiff if the injunction were denied and (2) the injury to the defendant and the public if the injunction were granted. If the plaintiff’s potential injury would be greater than the potential injury to the defendant and the public, then the injunction should be granted. However, if the plaintiff’s potential injury would be minimal compared to the potential injury to the defendant and the public, then the needs of these others justify denying the injunction, and the plaintiff is limited to monetary damages. During this balancing, the harm to the public typically carries more weight than harm to the defendant. Here, without the injunction, the Schultzes would continue to suffer a substantial loss of use and enjoyment of their property. In contrast, no evidence existed that the injunction would harm the public, such as by creating a shortage of available apartments. The injunction would cost Estancias a substantial amount of money, but Estancias would suffer only financial harm. In these circumstances, the trial court could find that, overall, the balance of harms justified issuing the injunction and abating the nuisance. The trial court’s ruling is affirmed.
Rule: For a private nuisance, an injunction is an appropriate remedy if a balancing of the equities shows that the injunction will prevent more harm than it will cause.
Public cannot experience any harm (public interest is most important element to analyze)
Not for determining nuisance but for damages
Balance of the equities for injunction
only if injunction is involved (step 2 after determining there is a nuisance)
Courts must weigh the injury of the complainant against the injury to the defendant and the public by enjoining the nuisance. The party/parties experiencing greater damage get relief in their favor.
P v. D + PUBLIC (public most weighty)
Boomer (let the activity continue if D pays damages)
Rule of Law: 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.
Facts: Atlantic Cement Co. (Atlantic) (defendant) is a cement plant in the Hudson River valley. Its surrounding neighbors (Boomer) (plaintiffs) brought suit alleging that the pollution Atlantic produces as a byproduct of its operation is a nuisance and causes damage to the plaintiffs’ properties. Special term determined that this situation is a nuisance. Temporary damages were awarded, but an injunction was denied. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division, which upheld the special term’s ruling. The plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Issue: Are permanent damages appropriate in a situation where the harm caused by a nuisance is significantly less than the benefit to the party causing the nuisance?
Holding and Reasoning (Bergan, J.): Yes. Boomer is entitled to an injunction that will be lifted once permanent damages are paid by Atlantic. A permanent injunction will not be awarded as defendant’s operations provide significantly more economic benefit to defendant than the damage caused to plaintiffs. Generally, an injunction is appropriate in cases where a nuisance would otherwise persist after a trial. However, an injunction in this case would require Atlantic to completely close its operation unless a cleaner method of producing cement could be found. This would be unfair to Atlantic, as the problem of pollution is one that is experienced by all cement factories, not only Atlantic. Since the economic benefit of keeping the factory open is greater than the harm suffered by Boomer, the most equitable solution is to award an injunction that will be lifted once Atlantic pays permanent damages to Boomer. By awarding an injunction that will be lifted once permanent damages are paid, Atlantic may keep its business open, and Boomer will be compensated for the harm he may suffer. Thus, the ruling of special term is reversed and remanded with instructions to apply the proper standard.
Spur Del Webb (Abate the activity if P pays damages) cttn
Rule of Law: When the public develops land in the vicinity of a public nuisance, the action creating the nuisance must be ceased by the party responsible for its creation, however, said party is entitled to compensation.
Facts: Del E. Webb Development Co. (plaintiff) was developing a retirement community for senior citizens on land it purchased adjacent to a plot owned by Spur Industries, Inc. (Spur) (defendant). Spur was a company involved in the raising of cattle. Webb Development’s purchase of its land occurred after the initial presence of the cattle farm. Webb Development brought suit against Spur because it argued that the smell from the cattle operations was a nuisance, and should be enjoined. The trial court agreed with Webb Development. Spur petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
Issue: When the public develops land in the vicinity of a public nuisance, must the action creating the nuisance be ceased by the party responsible for its creation?
Holding and Reasoning (Cameron, J.): Yes. Spur must cease its cattle operations, but is entitled to compensation from Webb. When the public develops land in the vicinity of a public nuisance, the action creating the nuisance must be ceased by the party responsible for its creation, however, said party is entitled to compensation. In this case, the cattle operations in question are a nuisance due to the production of manure, which attracted flies and had a very pungent smell. The existence of this nuisance, affecting a large number of homes in Webb’s development, indicates that the nuisance is a public nuisance. However, the cattle operations had been in existence for some time prior to Webb’s purchase of its land. Since a public nuisance exists, Spur may be enjoined from operating its cattle operations. However, Spur is entitled to compensation from Webb, as Webb attracted buyers to purchase lots in the vicinity of the nuisance after Spur had been operating its cattle
business. The judgment of the court below is remanded with instructions consistent with this opinion.
Range of Possible Injunction Resolutions in Nuisance Cases:
Allow activity to continue without damages
Abate the activity with injunctive relief (Morgan and Estancias)
Let the activity continue if D pays damages (Boomer)
Abate the activity if P pays damages (Spur)
