Also known as: gravity of the harm · severity of harm
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The extent and seriousness of injury or interference with another's protected interest. Courts weigh this factor against the utility of the actor's conduct to decide whether an intentional invasion of land use and enjoyment is unreasonable.
Republic Port operated open-air sandblasting across a narrow inlet from Olivia's waterfront home. Metallic dust coated her decks and furniture while nighttime noise prevented sleep. The court weighed the extent and character of this interference against the utility of ship repair and found the gravity of harm rendered the invasion unreasonable.
MetroBuild supervisor Carla ordered continued hoisting of steel beams during strong winds. A beam fell and injured pedestrian Nora. The court examined the extent of potential harm, its character as serious bodily injury, and the social value of timely construction to assess gravity of harm in the negligence analysis.
Neighbor Maretti planned a building that would shade Prah's solar panels. Prah showed the resulting loss of energy production and home value. The court considered the extent and character of the harm along with the social value of the invaded solar use when weighing gravity of harm.
The plaintiff, Frank Prah, owns a residence in a subdivision in the Town of Muskego that he constructed during 1978 or 1979. His home includes a solar energy system which includes roof-mounted solar collectors located on the south side of the roof. The solar energy system supplies heat for the plaintiff's domestic hot water and space heating. The plaintiff has invested $20,000 in his solar heating system. In 1980, the defendant, Richard D. Maretti, acquired the vacant lot immediately south of Prah's property and began planning to build a two-story residence whose roof would extend to within twelve feet of the lot line. The proposed structure would cast a shadow over Prah's solar collectors during the winter months, rendering the heating system inoperable. Prah informed Maretti about the solar system and asked him to adjust the location of the new home to avoid interference with the collectors, but Maretti declined to modify his plans. Prah then filed suit in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, alleging that the construction would constitute a private nuisance and seeking injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court of appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which accepted certification.
View caseSeller King knew three murders had occurred inside the home but said nothing to buyer Reed. The court assessed whether the stigma's effect on market value and desirability constituted material harm whose gravity required disclosure.
Dorris Reed purchased a house from Robert King. Neither King nor his real estate agents told Reed that a woman and her four children were murdered there 10 years earlier. However, King and his real estate agent knew about the murders and knew the event materially affected the market value of the house when they listed it for sale. They represented to Reed the premises were in good condition and fit for an “elderly lady” living alone but did not disclose the fact of the murders. At some point King asked a neighbor not to inform Reed of that event. Nonetheless, after Reed moved in neighbors informed her no one was interested in purchasing the house because of the stigma. Reed paid $76,000, but the house is only worth $65,000 because of its past. Reed sues seeking rescission and damages. King and the real estate agent defendants successfully demurred to her first amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Reed appeals the ensuing judgment of dismissal.
View caseCourts consider the extent of the harm, its character, the social value of the invaded use, the suitability of the use to the locality, and the burden on the plaintiff to avoid the harm. These factors appear in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 827 and guide the unreasonableness inquiry under § 826.
Supporting sources
An intentional invasion is unreasonable if the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the conduct. The comparison decides whether the defendant must pay damages or face an injunction.
Supporting sources
Yes. Negligence analysis evaluates the magnitude of risk by including the gravity or severity of threatened harm together with its probability, the number of people exposed, and the social value of the threatened interests.
Supporting sources
…the law of private nuisance requires the court to make "a comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests and to weigh the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the utility of the defendant's conduct." The circuit court concluded: "A comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests, keeping in mind the omissions and…