parent nodes: Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co | air and light | Calabresi corollary | chose of action | Coase Theorem | economic substantive due process | Fontainebleau Hotel v 45-25 | Intentional Torts | misappropriation | nuisance | Oehler v Levy | permanent damages | profanity | real property | Real Property | Rockenbach v Apostle | Rogers v Elliott | Rule 5 | Spur v Del E Webb
nuisance
nuisance is one of the Intentional Torts.
1. Theory of nuisance liability
See Coase Theorem; see also the Calabresi corollary and the Epstein restatement
Nuisance liability versus non-judicial solutions
At some point, a nuisance that affects a large enough number of people is a public nuisance and should be addressed by the legislature, not the courts.
Courts may also be more hesitant to allow a nuisance suit where the proposed land use has been approved by local zoning authorities. Fontainebleau Hotel v 45-25; but see Rockenbach v Apostle (nusiance suit allowed for funeral home in residential neighborhood approved by legislature). The weight of non-judicial decision may depend on the amount of public participation involved. At the same time, a specific non-judicial decision ("spot zoning") that results in shifting wealth from one land use to another may constitute an unconstitutional "taking" under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Specific types of nuisance cases
Nonmeasurable externalities can give rise to a private nuisance action. See Rockenbach v Apostle (injunction against funeral home because of depressing effect on neighbors' mood). However, bad publicity generated by unfounded fears of a dangerous externality does not in itself constitute a private nuisance. See Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co
At common law, a person had no action for nuisance against a use of land which predated his own possession of his neighboring property.
More modern cases recognize the shifting use of land over time, Oehler v Levy, as well as the social value of the nuisance-causing property use, [Powell v Superior Portland Cement]. On another hand, without the rule, property owners could buy land cheaply next to a nuisance and then force the nuisance out in order to improve their property values.
Rogers v Elliott
"No property owner has the right to erect and maintain an otherwise useless structure for the sole purpose of injuring his neighbor." [Sundowner v King]. Courts will construe "useless" strictly, so that a structure injurious to one's neighbors is not a spite fence if it serves any valid purpose.
A dilapidated house is not in itself a nuisance. [White v Bernhart].
3. Doctrinal definition:
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.
Comment D. "..an invasion may be regarded as unreasonable even though the utility of the conduct is great and the amount of harm is relatively small..."
Comment G. "Liability for damages is imposed in those cases in which the harm or risk to one is greater than he ought to bear under the cirumstances, at least without compensation."
(Rest 2d Torts 826)
Possible remedies
See Calabresi corollary
Cases
Rockenbach v Apostle
Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co
Rogers v Elliott
Fontainebleau Hotel v 45-25
[icon: cobra]
[alias: private nuisance]
[alias: spite fence]