Restrictions on Use of Natural Resources

Question 1

Vegetation

• Whitesell v. Houlton – HI (1981) “Banyan Tree”

Answer 1

o F: Branches of D’s tree extend onto P’s property and at some point damage garage roof; P hires professional to trim the tree and sues for damages; D argues no duty to cut extending branches
o H: For P; court considers 3 rules
 No duty (MA, DC approach)
 Absolute duty (CA, WA, NJ) – regardless of if any damage occurs or might occur
 Qualified duty to prevent sensible damage (VA)
 Ct. adopts modified VA rule “nuisance only when they actually cause, or there is imminent danger of them causing, sensible harm to property other than plant life, in ways other than by casting shade or dropping leaves/flowers/fruit”  actual damage demonstrated here
o Landowner may always, at his own expense, cut away overhanging branches at the property line  but has no right to sue/recover in these instances

Question 2

Water

• Yonadi v. Homestead Country Homes – NJ (1955) “Water flow”

Answer 2

• Reasonable use standard for riparian landowners
o F: P owned land w/ restaurant and golf course; D buys adjacent farmland and develops it into 160 homes; water runoff increases significantly and causes flooding; D takes steps to remove the surface water
o H: for D; if the water goes where it would have gone to anyway, then it is fine; if the water is pushed where it would not have gone, with artificial devices = liability
 Traditional rule: “common enemy” (favors landowner who expels the water, free to remove it without having to worry about its consequences)
 Civil law rule: natural servitude (legally enforceable imposition onto someone’s property) to accommodate the natural flow of the water
 Strict Liability rule: if there is water on your property and you expel it, then you are responsible for any damages it causes
 Reasonable Use rule: improver of land has duty to act reasonably w.r.t. surface water (public policy favors development of land)
• Natural flow versus reasonable use doctrines for riparian rights, reprised here
• Western states use prior appropriation rules

Question 3

Sunlight

• Prah v. Maretti – WI (1982) “Solar Panels”

Answer 3

o F: P has solar panels; D builds on adjacent land (over P’s warning), this blocks light and makes P’s solar panel system less efficient; sues
o H: SJ for D below; reversed by WI SC because this is a jury question about reasonableness (Private nuisance law is applicable in disputes over access to sunlight…question for the jury”)
 Sunlight w/in R2d Torts broad defn of enjoyment of property
 P advances 3 theories:
• Nuisance – D’s use impedes on P’s ability to enjoy
• Statutory right (WI law)
• Prior appropriation – had been using the light
 Ct. rejects doctrine of ancient lights from UK; US generally only honors express easements to sunlight
o Dissent: P has no colorable rights here – “solar heating system is an unusually sensitive use” (e.g. unreasonable)