Also known as: gravity of harm · seriousness of the harm · severity of injury
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The extent and character of injury or interference with another's use and enjoyment of land. Courts weigh this factor against the utility of the actor's conduct to decide whether an intentional invasion is unreasonable.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Georgia Gibbs lives across from a Granite Holdings plant that runs loud machinery at night. The constant noise prevents her from sleeping and forces her to keep windows closed year-round. Because the harm to her use of her property outweighs any benefit from the plant's schedule, the invasion is unreasonable.
Gareth Glover deliberately throws a rock at a neighbor's greenhouse to scare him. The rock shatters a window and also damages rare plants inside. The seriousness of the intended invasion makes Glover liable for the unintended plant damage that followed.
Gregory Gates operates a gravel crusher next to Gwen Gallagher's home. Fine dust settles on her garden and patio furniture every day. The extent and character of this interference with her outdoor use weighs heavily in finding the invasion unreasonable.
George Garcia sells his house to Genevieve Gardner without disclosing that a notorious murder occurred there years earlier. The stigma sharply reduces the home's market value and desirability. The gravity of this nondisclosure harm supports a claim that the seller had a duty to reveal the fact.
Greenleaf Farms plans a tall structure that will shade Gareth Glover's solar panels. The loss of solar access will force Glover to buy expensive electricity and reduce his property's value. The gravity of this harm to Glover's established use is weighed against the utility of the new construction.
Gateway Bank posts directional signs that violate a town code limiting their size and placement. The ordinance restricts the bank's ability to guide customers to its location. The gravity of the resulting commercial harm is considered when evaluating the rule's impact on protected expression.
Courts compare the seriousness of the interference with the utility of the actor's conduct. When the harm outweighs the benefit, the invasion is unreasonable and supports liability.
Important considerations include the extent of the harm, its character, the social value of the invaded use, and the suitability of that use to the locality.
Yes. When evaluating whether conduct creates an unreasonable risk, courts consider both the probability of harm and the gravity of the harm if it occurs, along with the number of people exposed.
…that is disproportionate in light of the relevant regulatory objectives. Answering this question requires examining the seriousness of the harm to speech, the importance of the countervailing objectives, the extent to which the law will achieve those objectives, and whether there are other, less restrictive ways of doing so. See,…