Nuisances - Cases n stuff

Nuisances - Cases n stuff

1. Morgan v. High Penn oil Co. (1953)-Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person who intentionally creates or maintains a private nuisance is liable for the resulting injury to others regardless of the degree of care or skill exercised by him to avoid such injury.

   • Facts. The Plaintiffs bought a tract of land, in which they created areas for trailers and rented these areas out. Approximately 1000 feet from the Plaintiff’s house, was located an oil refinery owned by the Defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that at certain hours during two or three days a week, the Defendant’s business emitted nauseating gas and fumes. Plaintiffs instituted a civil action to recover temporary damages for a private nuisance and to abate the nuisance by an injunction. The jury found for the Plaintiff and awarded damages and the injunction. The Defendant appealed. Issue. Whether the operation of the oil refinery constituted a nuisance per accidens, even if the business was not operated in a negligent manner.  
   • Held. Affirmed. The Plaintiffs do not need to prove that the business alleged to be the nuisance was negligently operated; rather they must prove that the operation and activity was intentional. Private nuisances are classified as (i) per se or at law and (ii) nuisances per accidens or in fact. A nuisance per se or at law is an act, occupation or structure, which is a nuisance at all times, under any circumstances. Nuisances per accidens or in fact are those, which become nuisances by reason of their location or manner in which they are constructed, maintained or operated. When an operation or business is conducted lawfully, it cannot be a nuisance per se or at law. An invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is intentional in the law of private nuisance when the person whose conduct is in question acts for the purpose of causing it or knows that it is resulting from his conduct or knows that it is substantially certain to result from his conduct.  

2. Restatement (Second) of Torts-§ 826 Unreasonableness of Intentional Invasion: An intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if (a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor's conduct, or (b) the harm caused by the conduct is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make the continuation of the conduct not feasible

3. Restatement (Second) of Torts-§ 827- Gravity of Harm—Factors Involved: In determining the gravity of the harm from an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important: (a) The extent of the harm involved; (b) the character of the harm involved; (c) the social value that the law attaches to the type of use or enjoyment invaded; (d) the suitability of the particular use or enjoyment invaded to the character of the locality; and (e) the burden on the person harmed of avoiding the harm.

4. Restatement (Second) of Torts-§ 828 Utility of Conduct—Factors Involved:In determining the utility of conduct that causes an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important: (a) the social value that the law attaches to the primary purpose of the conduct; (b) the suitability of the conduct to the character of the locality; and (c) the impracticability of preventing or avoiding the invasion.

5. Wernke v. Halas" The distinction is irrelevant, however; Wernke's tasteless decoration is merely an aesthetic annoyance, and we are not engaged in the incommodious task of judging aesthetics. The trial court erroneously entered summary judgment for the Halases on this issue, and again, because the evidence is undisputed, Wernke, not the Halases, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. "

   • neighbor feud-toilett on pole

6. Frederick M. PENDOLEY et al. v. Alfred G. FERREIRA - Rule-Where property owners in nearby residential district sought to enjoin operation of piggery, shown to be a nuisance, in determining relief it was appropriate to take into account damages to piggery operators as compared to benefit to homeowners in determining type and scope of relief to be granted, but this consideration was not necessarily conclusive. (Better said (me): In determining relief it was appropriate to take into account damages to defendant's as compared to benefit to Plaintiff's in determining type and scope of relief to be granted

   • Circumstances shown by master's report disclosed that operation of piggery on 25-acre tract in what had become a residential area was a substantial and unreasonable interference with plaintiffs' proper enjoyment of their residences and called for explicit injunctive relief, as damages alone would not be adequate compensation. M.G.L.A. c. 111 § 143.
   • Even apart from this question, we think that the plaintiffs are entitled to have the offensive operation terminated entirely within a reasonable time. Due consideration, however, must be given to the Ferreiras' economic interest in an orderly, rather than a hurried, liquidation of their pigs, and to affording them opportunity to find new premises. Accordingly, a permanent injunction against any operation of the piggery is to be granted, but the final decree is to provide (a) a reasonable opportunity for the Ferreiras to dispose of, or to move, the pigs, structures, and equipment, and (b) that the injunction is to take effect completely only at a specified future date, with provisions for the protection of the plaintiffs in the interim in some practicable manner.

7. Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz-Synopsis of Rule of Law. Even when there is a jury finding of a nuisance, there should be a balancing of the equities in order to determine if an injunction should be granted.

   • Facts. Plaintiffs reside in a residential house that is located adjacent to Defendant’s apartment complex. The Defendants have installed an air conditioning unit, which is located on the back-side of the apartment complex and about 55 feet from the Plaintiffs’ residence. Plaintiffs complain that the unit is so loud that it interferes with their enjoyment of their property. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin permanently Defendant’s operation of the air conditioning unit. The jury awarded damages and a permanent injunction to Plaintiffs. Issue. Whether the operation of the air conditioning unit by the Defendant should be enjoined and whether the trial court conducted a balancing of equities test that favored the Plaintiffs.  
   • Held. Affirmed, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the equities in favor of the Plaintiff and granting the injunction. Even when there is a jury finding of a nuisance, there should be a balancing of the equities in order to determine if an injunction should be granted. The court will consider any injury, which may result to the Defendant and the public by granting the injunction, as well as the injury to be sustained by the Plaintiff if the injunction is denied.

8. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement co-Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a nuisance is of such a permanent and unabatable nature that a single recovery can be had, there can be only one recovery. (---------Solution here was permanent relief rather than an injunction. Money damages. Means Cement Co bought the right to the use and enjoyment of the property. Means Company bought the right to pollute.)

   • Facts. The Defendant, Atlantic Cement Co. (Defendant), operated a large cement plant near Albany. The Plaintiffs, neighboring property owners (Plaintiffs) filed suit seeking an injunction and damages for injury to property from smoke, dirt and vibrations from the plant. Both lower courts ruled that the Defendant maintained a nuisance, but found that the value of the Defendant’s operation outweighed the consequences of the injunction. Plaintiffs appealed. Issue. Whether against current state policy, could a single recovery be had without the court issuing a permanent injunction?  
   • Held. Reversed. The trial court will grant the injunction. The injunction will be vacated upon the payment of permanent damages to Plaintiffs, which would compensate them for present and future economic loss to their property. Where a nuisance is of such a permanent and unabatable character that a single recovery can be had, including the past and future damages resulting there from, there can be but one recovery. Dissent. The dissent agreed with the reversal of the trial court by the majority, but disagreed with the award of damages in lieu of a permanent injunction where substantial property rights have been impaired. The dissent believed that by overruling the long established rule of granting injunctions, the court is allowing ongoing wrongs to be continued via payment of a fee.  
   • Remedy: Balance of Equity -Utility of conduct: Important employer/not the only of this type (that cause pollution) -gravity of the harm (relative to what it is producing) harm is small -Cost of avoiding injury

9. Spur Industries, Inc v. Del E. Webb Development Co- Synopsis of Rule of Law. In the proper circumstances, an owner of a lawful business that is enjoined from operating because his business is found to be a nuisance can seek indemnification from the individual successful in claiming the nuisance.

   • Facts. Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), began development of an urban area near the feedlots. Plaintiff filed a complaint in 1967 stating that the approximately 1,300 lots were unfit for residential development because of the feedlots proximity to the lots, therefore the feedlots constituted a public nuisance. The trial court permanently enjoined the defendant from operating the feedlots. Issue. Two issues were examined on appeal: Where a business is being operated in a lawful manner, may the operation be enjoined as a nuisance? If the operation is enjoined as a nuisance, may the developer who requested the enjoinment be required to indemnify the business owner.
   • Held. Affirmed. The feedlots are both a private and public nuisance to the residents of the development. Reversed as to damages awarded to Defendant, Plaintiff must indemnify Defendant for a reasonable amount of the cost of moving or shutting down. To be a public nuisance, the activity has to be one that must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. To be a private nuisance, it must affect a single individual or a definite small number of persons in the enjoyment of private rights not common to the public. By statute, Defendant’s feedlots could be deemed a public nuisance because of its potential to be dangerous to public health. With respect to indemnity, if a residential owner knowingly came into an area reserved for industrial or agricultural endeavors, he may not be entitled to relief.

Imágenes y archivos del mapa