Condensed Nusiance Outline.docx

Nuisances Trespass: The physical invasion by a person & there is liability w/o regard to the amount of harm. Nuisance: A nontrespassory interference with use, enjoyment & liability is subject to reasonableness inquiry unless dangerous or damaging activity per se. The 'sic utere tuo ut alienu...

Nuisances Trespass: The physical invasion by a person & there is liability w/o regard to the amount of harm. Nuisance: A nontrespassory interference with use, enjoyment & liability is subject to reasonableness inquiry unless dangerous or damaging activity per se. The 'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' maxim, an ancient principle, is the cornerstone of nuisance law. It advises that one should use one's property in a way that does not harm the property of others. The Coase Theorem = Under ideal economic conditions, where there is a conflict of property rights, the parties can bargain or negotiate terms that will accurately reflect the full costs and underlying values of the property rights, resulting in the most efficient outcome. Public Nuisance: An unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful interference with a right common to the general public (e.g., public health, safety, peace, by statute). Private Nuisance: Any nuisance that is not a public nuisance is a private nuisance (the use and enjoyment of land). There is a nuisance cause of action when someone interferes with your right to enjoy your property, but a trespass is not applicable. A landlord's violation of a state’s housing codes would be both a public nuisance and a private nuisance to the tenants. Requirements for a Private Nuisance Plaintiff has the right to possess or ownership of land; There is a) substantial b) interference The defendant undertakes an action that interferes with using or enjoying that land. In a substantial manner that a reasonable person would not tolerate (subjective test) And is either intentional (knowing) and unreasonable, or the unintentional result of negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous activity (Jost states that substantially impaired someone’s enjoyment of their property) Morgan Jost Juris Facts: Oil Co. operated an oil refinery near Morgan’s property. Morgan showed that the refinery emitted nauseating gases and odors a few days per week & brought a suit for private nuisance. Rule: A party who intentionally and unreasonably commits a nontrespassory invasion of another’s land can be held liable for private nuisance, even if the party was not negligent. Lateral Support & Subjacent Support A neighbor has an absolute right to lateral and subjacent support for his land in its natural state. Lateral support = Exists when the adjoining lands are side-by-side. It is the right of the land to be naturally upheld by its neighboring land(s) and supported against subsidence, i.e., slippage, cave-in, or landslide. There is a duty on neighboring land to provide the support the subject parcel would need and receive under natural conditions. Liability stays with an excavator, even if the landowner is no longer the owner. Subjacent support = Above/below adjoining lands. The land beneath supports the surface land. Unique situations = One landowner owns the surface, and another owns the minerals beneath the surface. If the landowner (top) “injures” the land below, there is an issue. [Snape] In lateral subsidence, the first question is the cause. The basic duty for both subjacent and sublateral landowners is that if one landowner, let's say the subjacent landowner, takes action that makes the surface land sink or implode, that's a nuisance and a violation of that duty. Example: Liz and Snape are neighbors. She thinks that there might be some oil on her property, so Liz starts exploring and drilling for it. I'm not doing anything to my property. I have no contributory action, and my house begins the same way. Liz will likely be liable in that situation for taking action that harms my lateral support. Conversely, I am renovating my barn while you search for oil; she can argue that I contributed. Nuisance Remedies: 1) Money damages but no injunction; 2) an injunction but no money damages; 3) damages and an injunction; 4) no liability at all. Estancia Dallas Corp = The plaintiff gets no monetary damages but a permanent injunction. Morgan = The plaintiff gets temporary (past) damages and a permanent injunction. Boomer = The plaintiff gets permanent monetary damages but only a temporary injunction. Webb = The plaintiff developer obtained a permanent injunction but must pay the defendant for it (a negotiated settlement will follow). Nuisance Jurisdictional Split: Jost & Restatement (community property states) Jost States: When a landowner takes action that substantially impairs your use/enjoyment of your property. Money Damages: If an adjacent property owner takes action that's substantially impaired to use an advantage of another property owner's property, that's a nuisance. Jost Plaintiff-centered threshold/unreasonable test: Is it reasonable for the nuisance receiver to suffer the nuisance w/o compensation in light of the suitability of the conduct to the neighborhood and how it affects the land? Jost unneighborliness = Depriving others of their enjoyment of property is not ok. Snape: Jost stands for the proposition that if that harm exists, it's a nuisance. The court will not discuss the defendants' reasonability here; it's not relevant to whether there's an actual nuisance. Community Property States/Restatement States = Balancing Test Balancing the benefits of whatever the harm vs. the harm to other landowners. | Compare the injury to the plaintiff & injury to the defendant + general public If the injury to the plaintiff > injury to the defendant = granted injunction (opposite=denied) (Estancias) Example = Balancing the benefits of burning debris/leaves vs. the harm to other landowners. Nuisance Remedy Cases Estancias: CPS Balancing Test Facts: An apartment complex was built next to the Schutlz’s. The developers put an AC unit close to their property, which was very loud. They couldn’t entertain outside, and it was difficult to talk even when the windows were shut. Rule: Even in the case of a proven nuisance, the court must still balance the equities to determine whether an injunction is appropriate. Balancing the equities (injury to P & injury to D + public) for an injunction Jost Facts: Emissions and debris from a dairy farm were ruining a neighboring farmer’s property, damaging air quality, and damaging infrastructure and crops. Rule: Re: a nuisance action for damages, the reasonableness & usefulness of the defendant’s conduct are irrelevant. Boomer: Permanent injunction Facts: Cement Co. on the Hudson River valley. Its neighbors (Boomer) brought suit, alleging that it is polluting the water, through a byproduct of its operation, is a nuisance and damages the plaintiffs’ properties. Rule: Permanent damages, rather than an injunction, are appropriate when the damages resulting from a nuisance are significantly less than the economic benefit of the party causing the harm. Spur: When P brings nuisance to D Facts: AZ cow farming industry (Spur) vs. “retiree” real estate developers. Rule: When the public develops land near a public nuisance, the party responsible for creating it must cease the action; however, said party is entitled to compensation.