Also known as: private nuisances · private tort nuisance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land. The invasion must substantially and unreasonably interfere with the plaintiff's protected interest in land.
Pierre Poulin lives next to a manufacturing plant operated by Paragon Construction. Daily chemical emissions reach Poulin's property and compel him to keep every window sealed year-round, producing mold inside the house and eliminating use of his porch. The emissions constitute a nontrespassory invasion of Poulin's interest in the private use and enjoyment of his land.
Phoebe Park owns a home adjacent to a quarry owned by Prosperity Investments. The quarry operator knows vibrations from blasting travel onto Park's land each afternoon yet takes no steps to reduce them. The ongoing failure to act allows the vibrations to invade Park's interest in the private use and enjoyment of her land.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Priscilla Parks owns a residence near a large cattle feedlot. The feedlot's persistent odors and flies enter Parks's property and prevent her from using her yard for ordinary outdoor activities. The invasion substantially interferes with Parks's interest in the private use and enjoyment of her land.
Penelope Price develops a residential community near an existing cattle feedlot owned by Pioneer Energy. The feedlot's odors and flies reach the new homes and substantially interfere with residents' use of their yards. The invasion of the residents' interest in the private use and enjoyment of their land supports injunctive relief despite the feedlot's prior operation.
Preston Pratt owns beachfront lots he plans to fill for development. State regulators deny permits because filling would flood neighboring parcels. The denial duplicates the result that adjacent owners could obtain by suing Pratt for private nuisance based on the flooding invasion of their land.
Peter Park operates a dairy that sells milk below the state minimum price. The price regulation is challenged as beyond the state's power to address economic conditions. The regulation is sustained because the state's authority extends to measures protecting the public interest even when the conduct does not constitute a private nuisance.
The plaintiff must hold a property right or privilege in the use and enjoyment of the affected land, including possession. A person without such an interest, such as a mere licensee or passerby, cannot recover.
Supporting sources
Private nuisance protects the interest in use and enjoyment through nontrespassory invasions such as odors, noise, or vibrations. Trespass requires a physical entry onto the land and protects the right to exclusive possession.
Supporting sources
Yes. Regulatory compliance is relevant evidence but does not automatically preclude liability when the invasion substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of land.
Supporting sources
No. Prior knowledge of the condition is a factor courts weigh in the reasonableness analysis but does not automatically defeat a private nuisance claim.
Supporting sources
…on Law of Torts § 90 (5th ed. 1984) (public nuisances usually remedied by criminal prosecution or abatement), id. , § 89 (private nuisances usually remedied by damages, injunction, or abatement); see also, e. g. , Mugler v. Kansas , 123 U. S. 623, 668-669 (1887) (prohibition on use of property to manufacture intoxicating…