Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor considered by a court in deciding whether to grant an injunction against a tort or to enforce a restrictive covenant. The court weighs the comparative burden an injunction would impose on the defendant against the harm the plaintiff would suffer if relief is denied.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
5
Nuisance from Stadium Upgrades
Rebecca Ross owns a home next to a professional baseball stadium. After the stadium installed a new video board and sound system, intense light and noise entered her windows on game nights, causing sleep loss and a drop in property value. The stadium could install shields and lower volume at modest cost. A court weighing relative hardship would compare the modest expense to the stadium against the ongoing interference with Ross's use of her home.
Poultry Farm Expansion Dispute
Ronald Reed lives beside a poultry farm that recently added high-capacity fans and larger hen houses. The changes produced strong odors, dust, and flies that entered Reed's home daily and required expensive pest control. The farm employs many local workers and pays substantial taxes. A court applying relative hardship would compare the farm's potential closure costs against Reed's continuing interference with residential use.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
Website Scraping Injunction Request
Riverstone Manufacturing operates an online marketplace. A competitor automated the copying of its listings within minutes of posting, causing subscriber losses that are hard to quantify. The competitor claims an injunction would halt its entire business model. A court balancing relative hardship would weigh the competitor's operational shutdown against the marketplace's ongoing loss of goodwill and market position.
eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc.100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2000)
Feedlot Near New Homes
Ravi Reddy developed a residential community next to an existing feedlot. Odors and flies from the feedlot now interfere with residents' use of their homes. Closing the feedlot would impose a substantial loss on its owner. A court balancing relative hardship would compare the feedlot's relocation costs against the residents' ongoing nuisance while considering the developer's role in creating the conflict.
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)
Easement Overburden Dispute
Raymond Ramos owns land subject to an easement benefiting Robert Rivera's adjacent parcel. Rivera began using the easement to access nondominant land, increasing traffic across Ramos's property. An injunction would require Rivera to stop the expanded use. A court weighing relative hardship would compare the minimal burden on Rivera against the increased interference with Ramos's land.
Brown v. Voss38 Wash. App. 777, 689 P.2d 1111 (1984)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
How does relative hardship affect the decision to grant an injunction?+
Relative hardship is one factor in the comparative appraisal that determines whether an injunction is appropriate. The court weighs the burden an injunction would place on the defendant against the harm the plaintiff would suffer without relief. When the defendant's hardship greatly exceeds the plaintiff's harm, a court may deny the injunction and award damages instead.
Supporting sources
Does relative hardship apply only in nuisance cases?+
No. The factor applies to any request for injunctive relief against a tort and also appears in property cases involving enforcement of restrictive covenants or easements. Courts use the same balancing process whether the underlying claim is trespass, nuisance, or covenant violation.
Supporting sources
What happens when relative hardship favors the defendant?+
When the hardship to the defendant from an injunction greatly exceeds the harm to the plaintiff, a court may refuse injunctive relief and award damages instead. This outcome avoids imposing a disproportionate burden while still compensating the plaintiff for the injury suffered.
Supporting sources
Does the plaintiff's conduct affect the relative-hardship analysis?+
Yes. If the plaintiff is responsible for creating or increasing the hardship, that responsibility weighs against granting the injunction. Courts also consider delay and related misconduct as part of the overall equitable balance.
Supporting sources
494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)Torts
…proximity of the residences. We believe that in such a case, the court must balance the equities. The court must consider the relative hardships to the parties. If the feedlot is allowed to continue, the residents of Sun City will continue to be bothered by odors and flies. If the feedlot is closed, Spur will suffer a substantial…