Also known as: gravity of harm · seriousness of the harm · severity of injury
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
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.
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 caseGreenleaf 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.
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 caseGateway 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.
The Town of Gilbert, Arizona, maintains a comprehensive Sign Code that categorizes outdoor signs by the type of information they convey and imposes different restrictions on each category. Ideological signs communicating messages or ideas for noncommercial purposes may be up to 20 square feet and displayed without time limits. Political signs designed to influence elections may be up to 32 square feet and displayed up to 60 days before a primary and 15 days after a general election. Temporary directional signs relating to qualifying events, such as meetings of nonprofit groups, are limited to 6 square feet, may be displayed no more than 12 hours before and 1 hour after the event, and are restricted in placement. Petitioners Good News Community Church and its pastor Clyde Reed are small nondenominational churches that hold services at various temporary locations in the Town. To advertise their services, the Church posts 15 to 20 temporary signs around the Town early on Saturday mornings displaying the Church name and the time and location of the next service, removing them around midday on Sunday. The Town's Sign Code compliance manager cited the Church twice for violating the time limits on temporary directional signs and for failing to include an event date on the signs. Town officials confiscated one sign, which Reed retrieved from municipal offices. Reed contacted the compliance department to reach an accommodation, but the manager informed the Church there would be no leniency and promised to punish future violations. The Churches filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging the Sign Code violated the First Amendment, and sought a preliminary injunction. The District Court denied the motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding the Sign Code was content neutral. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseCourts 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,…