Private Nuisance

Question 1

interference w/plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of land

Answer 1

private nuisance

Question 2

Page County Appliance Center v. Honeywell Inc.

Answer 2

tv displays in store, bad reception cuz interference by def’s computers.
Find:nuisance claim, the def. must be a substantial contributor to an unreasonable interference in another’s use of his property. Any jury instructions which do not qualify these requirements are inadequate. These requirements are questions for the jury and the court should provide the jury with enough guidance so that they can make an informed decision. In this case, the trial court’s jury instructions simply stated the unreasonableness requirement without defining it. Similarly, the instructions omitted the requirement that ITT’s conduct be a substantial factor, and not simply a contributor, in bringing the nuisance.

Question 3

Private Nuisance elements

Answer 3

1) SUBSTANTIAL interference by def. from its land w/plaintiff’s use&enjoyment of his land (according to experience of ordinary member of society) AND
2)One of the following:
a)fault (intent or KWSC in interfering result AND interference is unreasonable, meaning:
(i)-gravity of harm outweighs utility of def. conduct
(ii)Def. could’ve avioded harm (entire or in part) w/out
undue hardship. (or)
(iii)Plntf uses in well suited manner to local & def. dont
OR
b) Fault=double duty intent, R, N or abnormally dangr. activity

Question 4

Subtantial

Answer 4

(fuzzy) must be more than annoying & is different based on locale, etc- ex) manhatten people are used to different interferences than rural kansas. (obj- so peculiar sensitive people don’t get to recover)

Question 5

Do a kinda B>p*L analysis on

Answer 5

Fault, part 2 (intent or KWSC)—kinda like sp/l, gravity outweighs harm (note abnorm. dangr. activity as 2b)

Question 6

general aggravations of daily life

Answer 6

are not nuisances (*everyone puts up w/) has to be unreas. & substantial

Question 7

Common defendants in Priv. Nuisance cases

Answer 7

utility companies, manufacturers, handlers of hazardous substances, telecommunication broadcasters & farmers.

Question 8

If companied is complying w/regulations, is that a complete defense?

Answer 8

No, usually a matter of evidence for the jury.

Question 9

Defenses

Answer 9

<– Consent (intent. nuis)

Question 10

Remedies

Answer 10

damages & sometimes injunction

Question 11

Allows equitable compensation instead of just shutting down business

Answer 11

2a(ii) Def. could’ve avioded harm (entire or in part) w/out

undue hardship

Question 12

pushing courts to the corrective side ….

Answer 12

Courts are not a regulatory enforcer- so non-compliance is a rule of evidence & not a mechanism to shut down the business (meaning wrong- u gone) (not an executor of regulatory enforcement

Question 13

Restraining corrective, judicial power from encroaching on the distributive, political sphere

Answer 13

public nuisance is not actionable w/out legislative authorization

Question 14

Difference between private nuisance & trespass

Answer 14

Trespass- physical intrusion

Nuisance- fig. Interference w/use or enjoyment

Question 15

deprivation of light as a nuisance?

Answer 15

US courts have widely rejected (japan-compensates)

Question 16

No nuisance cases

Answer 16

• noises & offensive odors
• blowing water onto adjoining land
• causing presence of insects
• destroying vegetation

Question 17

volitional act reasoning

Answer 17

if you did volitional act, then you know the interfering result (kinda like s/l)

Question 18

all elements are a matter/question of

Answer 18

Fact

*but court could say reas. minds could not differ & make substantiality a matter of law