Trespass and Nuisance Flashcards
1
Q
Trespass
A
- entry onto someone else’s property w/o consent or privilege
- interference w/ exclusive possession
- intent to harm is not a requirement for trespassing
2
Q
Trespass - Requirements/Components
A
- Act -> Entry -> Wrongful Quality -> Specific Injuries
- you need entry + wrongful quality in fact, but only need intent w/ respect to the physical act of entry (don’t need to intend that it’s wrongful)
- don’t need to intend the specific injuries, + injuries can be nominal
3
Q
Cleveland Park Club v. Perry - Facts
A
- Cleveland Park Club = private social club
- sues 9 yr old for trespass b/c he put a tennis ball in a pool drain -> caused damage
- note that they sue for trespass rather than negligence b/c negligence would’ve taken into account age (reasonable care) vs. trespass only requires intent for the entry
4
Q
Cleveland Park Club v. Perry - Rule
A
- only need intent w/ respect to entry
- wrongfulness of entry must be present in fact, but you don’t need to intend it
5
Q
Longenecker v. Zimmerman
A
- case w/ the cedar trees - def thought own, + had them topped, trimmed, + cleaned of bagworms
- intent only as to act - no intent as to wrongfulness + arguably no harm, but pl still entitled to nominal damages
6
Q
Southern Counties IC Co v. RKO Radio Pictures
A
- one who exercises complete dominion over property -> if anything happens during that period, it’s at your peril even if not your fault
7
Q
Scribner v. Summers
A
- def liable for barium contamination of neighboring property under theory of trespass
- had to intend the act that amounted to/produced the unlawful invasion + had good reason to know or expect conditions were such that there’d be passage of contaminated water
8
Q
Nuisance
A
- substantial, intentional, + unreasonable interference w/ someone’s use + enjoyment of land
9
Q
Elements of Nuisance
A
- Intentional interference - purpose OR knowledge that invasion of another’s interest is resulting or substantially certain
- substantial injury (physical invasion/harm most obvious, but there are other types of injury)
- unreasonable
10
Q
Nuisance - Determination of Unreasonability
A
- if gravity of harm outweighs utility of actor’s conduct
- if harm is serious + financial burden of compensating would not make the continuation of the conduct unfeasible
- note that there can still be unreasonable harm even if utility outweighs the harm - just means you’re likely to get damages instead of an injunction
11
Q
Rationale for Damages When Utility Outweighs Harm
A
- concept that harm being done even if societal beneficial activity -> industry gave rise to the harm + therefore should be liable + internalize its costs
- basic fairness: if conduct gave rise to the benefit, you ought to bear the burden
12
Q
Gravity vs. Utility - Severe Harm
A
- from Second Restatement
- notion that regardless of utility of the activity, interference can be unreasonable if harm resulting from invasion severe + greater than other should be required to bear w/o compensation
- some harms so severe that they require holding of unreasonable as a matter of law, no matter utility of activity
13
Q
O’Cain v. O’Cain - Facts
A
- hog-raising on strip of land owned by defs but right in front of pl’s house
14
Q
O’Cain v. O’Cain - Decision + Reasoning
A
- court grants injunction - largely balanced benefits of injunction to pls against inconvenience + damage to defs
- odor + flies so bad homeowners didn’t want to use decks + didn’t want to be in home -> court said no rxn of an overly sensitive person
- also testimony sale of home impacted
- recognized general area of property rural + business of raising hogs legit + likely to occur in the area but said raising on the specific land unreasonable + unwarranted (pointed out def’s had other, more suitable places to raise the hogs)
15
Q
Wheat v. Freeman Coal Mining Corp
A
- pls owned 37.5 acre farm
- defs coal mine interfered w/ use + enjoyment - large amounts of coal dust + smoke entered property + defs well burned + emitted noxious fumes
