Also known as: utilities
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
The social value that the law attaches to the interest advanced or protected by conduct. It is weighed against the magnitude of the risk of harm to determine whether the risk is unreasonable and the conduct is negligent or constitutes an unreasonable invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land.
The social value that the law attaches to the interest advanced or protected by conduct. It is weighed against the magnitude of the risk of harm to determine whether the risk is unreasonable and the conduct is negligent or constitutes an unreasonable invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land.
The capacity of an invention to perform a useful function or attain a beneficial result. It is one of the basic requirements for patentability along with novelty and nonobviousness.
1 common questions
The invention must be operable and capable of providing some identifiable benefit. The threshold is low and is met so long as the invention is not totally incapable of achieving a useful result.
The capacity of an invention to perform a useful function or attain a beneficial result. It is one of the basic requirements for patentability along with novelty and nonobviousness.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Ugo Uberti, a delivery driver, chose a flooded shortcut to meet a deadline. The shortcut created a high risk of harm to pedestrians. The low social value of faster deliveries did not outweigh that risk, so the conduct was negligent.
Unity Capital, a regulated electric provider, terminated service under approved rules. The low social value of avoiding minor administrative costs did not outweigh the high risk of harm to dependent customers. The termination was therefore negligent.
Upstream Petroleum operated a plant that released emissions onto Uma Underwood's adjacent land. The emissions caused serious harm. Because the gravity of the harm outweighed the utility of the plant's manner of operation, the invasion was unreasonable.
Uriel Urban drove an ambulance through a red light during an emergency. The high social value of saving lives and the strong chance of advancing that interest supported finding the conduct reasonable despite the risk created.
Central Hudson proposed advertising to increase electricity sales. The modest social value of additional consumption did not outweigh risks of resource waste and consumer confusion. Regulators therefore found the promotional conduct unreasonable.
In December 1973, the Public Service Commission ordered electric utilities in New York State to cease all advertising that promoted the use of electricity because the interconnected utility system lacked sufficient fuel stocks for the 1973-1974 winter. The order rested on the Commission's finding that the system did not have sufficient fuel stocks or sources of supply to meet customer demands. Three years later, when the fuel shortage had eased, the Commission requested comments from the public on its proposal to continue the ban on promotional advertising. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. opposed the ban on First Amendment grounds. After reviewing the public comments, the Commission extended the prohibition in a Policy Statement issued on February 25, 1977. The Policy Statement divided advertising expenses into promotional and institutional categories. It permitted informational advertising designed to encourage shifts of consumption from peak demand times to periods of low electricity demand. The Commission banned promotional advertising because additional electricity would be more expensive to produce and promotional advertising would give misleading signals to the public. Central Hudson challenged the order in state court. The order was upheld through the New York Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and reversed.
A city ordinance limited home occupancy to nuclear families. The low social value of the restriction in advancing zoning goals did not outweigh burdens on extended families. The ordinance was therefore unreasonable under substantive due process.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
3 common questions
Utility is one factor in the risk-utility balancing test. When the magnitude of the risk outweighs the social value of the conduct, the risk is unreasonable and the actor is negligent.
Supporting sources
Courts consider the social value of the interest advanced, the extent of the chance that the interest will be advanced, and the extent to which the interest can be advanced by less dangerous conduct.
Supporting sources
Yes. An intentional invasion of land use and enjoyment is unreasonable if the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor's conduct.
Supporting sources
…so that skilled miners would be available for other mining work held not a taking): Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n , 346 U. S. 346 (1953) (railroad may be required to share cost of constructing railroad grade improvement); Walls v. Midland Carbon Co. , 254 U. S. 300 (1920) (law prohibiting…