Also known as: private nuisance · private nuisances · private nuisance law
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land that occurs without physical entry onto the land.
Lily Lopez operates a small bakery whose exhaust vents release baking odors and heat directly onto the backyard patio of Lola Langley's adjacent home. The odors and heat make it impossible for Langley to use her patio for meals or relaxation during business hours. Langley sues Lopez for damages arising from the interference with her residential use.
Lumen Capital installs new crushing machinery at its recycling plant after receiving complaints from neighboring homeowner Luna Lang about noise and vibration. The company continues running the equipment without enclosures despite knowing the added machines will increase the disturbance reaching Lang's bedroom at night. Lang seeks an injunction and damages.
Lorenzo Lugo plans a tall addition to his home that will cast permanent shade over Leonard Lowe's solar panels and garden. Lowe sues to stop the construction, claiming the loss of sunlight unreasonably interferes with his established use of the land for energy production and outdoor activities.
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 caseLamar Lewis builds a large structure on his beachfront lot that diverts sand and blocks natural dune migration onto Lola Langley's neighboring parcel. Langley sues Lewis for damages arising from the resulting interference with her established use of the land for erosion control and recreation.
In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas purchased two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, for $975,000. He intended to construct single-family homes on the parcels, which at the time were zoned for such use and required no building permit for development. No portion of the lots qualified as a critical area under then-existing coastal zone legislation. Subsequently, in 1988, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act. The legislation established a baseline and prohibited construction of occupable improvements seaward of a line drawn 20 feet landward of that baseline, directly affecting Lucas's parcels by barring any permanent habitable structures. Lucas filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas alleging that the Act's restrictions effected a taking of his property without just compensation. Following a bench trial, the court determined that the prohibition rendered the lots valueless and ordered the state to pay just compensation in the amount of $1,232,387.50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the trial court's judgment. It accepted the legislature's findings that new construction threatened public resources and concluded that a regulation designed to prevent serious public harm could not constitute a taking. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision.
View caseLinden Logistics applies herbicide by plane near Lola Langley's organic farm. Particles drift onto her crops and soil, damaging yields and requiring remediation. Langley sues the company for the resulting interference with her agricultural operations.
Oluf and Debra Johnson are organic farmers in central Minnesota whose fields are certified under the National Organic Program. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company is a member-owned provider that applies pesticides to conventional farm fields adjacent to the Johnsons' property. In June 2007 the Johnsons filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture alleging pesticide drift onto one of their transitional soybean fields. On June 15, 2007, winds of 9 to 21 miles per hour carried Status (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) and Roundup Original (glyphosate) from the Cooperative's spraying of a neighboring conventional field onto the Johnsons' soybeans. MDA testing detected dicamba below detection levels but no diflufenzopyr or glyphosate. The MDA nevertheless directed the Johnsons to plow down approximately 10 acres of the crop because of visual damage and the presence of dicamba. The Johnsons also notified their certifying agent, the Organic Crop Improvement Association. An August 27, 2007 OCIA letter stated that chemical drift may have occurred and that, if contamination were confirmed, the field would have to return to the beginning of the 36-month transition period. The Johnsons therefore restarted the three-year transition for that soybean field. In July 2008 the Johnsons reported a second incident in which Roundup Power Max and Select Max (glyphosate and clethodim) drifted onto a transitional alfalfa field. MDA testing found minimal glyphosate. On August 1, 2008, they reported a third incident involving Lorsban Advanced (chlorpyrifos) on the same alfalfa field. Testing again showed minimal residue. The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's applications caused both positive results. The Johnsons took the alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional three years. The Johnsons sued the Cooperative for trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery, claiming economic losses from the three-year transition periods, destruction of the soybean crop, increased weeding and reporting burdens, and adverse health effects to Oluf Johnson. They also sought a permanent injunction barring spraying within a half mile of their fields. The district court granted summary judgment to the Cooperative on all claims and denied the Johnsons' motion to amend the complaint to add the 2008 incidents. The court of appeals reversed in part. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Cooperative's petition for review.
View caseLone Peak Energy maintains a holding pond whose overflow repeatedly floods Leonard Lowe's adjacent pasture. Lowe sues for damages arising from the interference with his agricultural use of the land even though no physical entry by Lone Peak personnel occurs.
In 1932, prices received by New York dairy farmers for milk fell substantially below the cost of production amid overproduction and destructive competition. A joint legislative committee investigated the industry through public hearings and expert studies, producing a detailed report that recommended price regulation to stabilize the market and ensure an adequate supply of wholesome milk. The Legislature responded by enacting Chapter 158 of the Laws of 1933, which established a Milk Control Board empowered to fix minimum and maximum wholesale and retail prices for milk. The Board issued an order setting a minimum price of nine cents per quart for milk sold by stores to consumers in cities and villages over one thousand population. Leo Nebbia, the proprietor of a grocery store in Rochester, sold two quarts of milk and a five-cent loaf of bread for eighteen cents on April 19, 1933, thereby charging less than the prescribed minimum. He was prosecuted for violating the order, convicted in the County Court of Monroe County, and sentenced to pay a fine. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and by the Court of Appeals of New York. Nebbia maintained throughout that the statute and the order contravened the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
View caseOnly those who hold a property right or privilege in the affected land may recover. This includes possessors such as owners and tenants as well as holders of easements or profits whose use and enjoyment is impaired. A mere licensee or manager without a present possessory interest lacks standing.
No. Operating under required permits or within zoning rules does not immunize a defendant from liability. A lawful activity may still constitute a nuisance if it substantially and unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of land.
Liability may rest on an affirmative act that produces the invasion or on a failure to act when the defendant is under a duty to prevent or abate the interference. Continued operations after notice of harm can satisfy the conduct element.
One factor is the suitability of the invaded use to the character of the locality. A use that fits the neighborhood's existing or reasonably developing character receives greater protection than one that does not.
…that could have been achieved in the courts by adjacent landowners (or other uniquely affected persons) under the State's law of private nuisance, or by the State under its complementary power to abate nuisances that affect the public generally, or otherwise. On this analysis, the owner of a lake bed, for example, would not be…