Also known as: rights common to the general public · public right · common public right
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A right shared by members of the public at large, such as rights to public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience. Interference with the right supplies the foundation for a public nuisance claim when the interference is unreasonable.
Roland Rhodes operates the sole bait shop on the access road to a public lake. A neighboring hog farm sprays manure that sends odors and flies across the public road and lakefront, deterring customers. Rhodes suffers a near-total loss of seasonal income that differs in kind from the recreational inconvenience experienced by other lake users. The distinct economic harm allows Rhodes to pursue an individual damages action for interference with the public right.
Raphael Rivera lives near a public park where a nearby factory emits continuous chemical fumes. The fumes cause nausea and force cancellation of community events that the public normally enjoys in the park. The interference affects the shared right to public comfort and convenience held by all park visitors.
Ryan Roberts owns a home along a public highway. A construction company repeatedly routes overloaded trucks across the road in violation of weight limits, creating hazards that endanger all drivers. The resulting interference with the public right to safe travel on the highway supplies evidence of unreasonableness.
Robert Rivera maintains a lakeside campground open to the public. An upstream dairy farm allows manure lagoons to overflow repeatedly after rains, sending contaminants into the lake that the farm knows will recur. The continuing effect on the public right to use the lake supports a finding that the interference is unreasonable.
Riley Rivera operates a chemical plant that knowingly releases untreated effluent into a public river each week. The discharge is substantially certain to impair the public's ability to fish and swim in the river. The purposeful nature of the conduct establishes intent to interfere with the public right.
Rajesh Rao performs a human cannonball act at a county fair open to the public. A television station films and broadcasts the entire act without consent, capturing the performance that members of the public paid to see. The broadcast interferes with the public's shared interest in controlling access to the live spectacle.
Hugo Zacchini performs a "human cannonball" act in which he is shot from a cannon into a net some 200 feet away, with each performance occupying some 15 seconds. In August and September 1972, Zacchini was engaged to perform his act on a regular basis at the Geauga County Fair in Burton, Ohio. He performed in a fenced area, surrounded by grandstands, at the fair grounds, and members of the public attending the fair were not charged a separate admission fee to observe his act. On August 30, a freelance reporter for Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the operator of a television broadcasting station, attended the fair carrying a small movie camera. Zacchini noticed the reporter and asked him not to film the performance, and the reporter did not do so on that day. On the instructions of the producer of the station's daily newscast, the reporter returned the following day and videotaped the entire act. This film clip, approximately 15 seconds in length, was shown on the 11 o'clock news program that night, together with favorable commentary. Zacchini then brought this action for damages against Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. He alleged that the station showed and commercialized the film of his act without his consent. Such conduct was an unlawful appropriation of his professional property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the broadcaster. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed. The Supreme Court of Ohio gave judgment for the broadcaster. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseThe right encompasses public health, safety, peace, comfort, and convenience, including use of public roads, waterways, air, and recreational spaces. Activities that interfere with these shared interests can support a public nuisance claim when the interference is unreasonable.
A plaintiff seeking damages in an individual action must show harm different in kind from that suffered by other members of the public exercising the same right. Economic loss unique to a business dependent on public access satisfies the requirement when the general public experiences only recreational inconvenience.
Courts consider whether the conduct significantly affects public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience, whether it violates a statute or regulation, and whether it is continuing or produces a permanent or long-lasting effect that the actor knows about. Multiple factors may combine to establish unreasonableness.
Violation of a statute, ordinance, or regulation supplies evidence that the interference is unreasonable but does not by itself define the underlying public right. The conduct must still affect a right shared by the public at large, such as comfort or convenience in public spaces.
…national sovereignty in the air space” over this country. 49 U. S. C. § 176 (a). They grant any citizen of the United States “a public right of freedom of transit in air commerce through the navigable air space of the United States.” 49 U. S. C. § 403. And “navigable air space” is defined as “airspace above the minimum…