Rights to Use of Natural Resources

Question 1

a) Vegetation

Answer 1

i) can cut away vegetation falling over prop line, but who should bear cost (or cost of harm should no one cut)?
(1) MA view: no duty from ∆
(2) NJ view: duty whether/not there is harm
(3) VA view: duty to prevent sensible harm (obvious dangers)

Question 2

(a) Whitesell v Houlton:

Answer 2

modified rule: non-noxious plant generally not nuisances, but overhanging branches/roots that provide imminent danger of harm or cause sensible harm to prop other than plants
(i) F: tree over prop line; damaged π’s prop; πs paid to fix and cut tree; recompensation suit–>for π

Question 3

Water

Answer 3

i) Common enemy rule: diversion of surface water doesn’t give rise to actionable injury

ii) Restatement view: person altering drainage has duty to act reas’ly under circumstances (can rid water reas’ly)
(1) Yonadi

iii) Natural flow rule: higher prop owner can let water flow down to lower prop owner-no right to interfere (dam)

Question 4

(1) Yonadi:

Answer 4

constructed drain; increased flow of water on π’s landremanded, not liable if flow (even if artificial) goes where it would’ve (even if excessive); liable if transferred to land it otherwise wouldn’t go

Question 5

Sunlight

Answer 5

i) Doctrine of ancient lights: if owner has received sunlight for period of time, entitled to unobstructed access
(1) Counter: Inconsistent w/ needs of developing country
ii) Malicious obstruction: can’t maliciously block sunlight out of spite (spite fence)
iii) Reasonable Use
(1) Prah

Question 6

(1) Prah:

Answer 6

π used sunlight for solar energy; ∆ obstructed access by house (reasonable use, right?)remanded under reas use doctrine (private nuisance doctrine)