3 Harms to Personal Property and Land Flashcards
Question 7267 mix mbe pq s5
Every holiday season, a man decorated his house with extravagant lights and his front lawn with winter holiday scenes. Because the man only kept the lights on for three hours every evening and turned off the whole display before bedtime, the lights themselves did not disrupt his neighbors’ uses of their own properties. However, the man’s annual display generated significant car traffic each evening, and many spectators would block the neighbors’ driveways on the street in order to get a closer look. The neighbor who lived directly across the street from the man had a car, but his driveway was on the other side of his house, and it exited into an alley that was not affected by the car traffic. However, the neighbor thought that the man’s display was tacky and obtrusive.
If the neighbor sues the man for a private nuisance, is he likely to succeed?
a No, because the lights were only on for three hours every evening.
b No, because the car traffic did not block the neighbor’s driveway.
c Yes, because the display causes a substantial and unreasonable interference.
d Yes, because the display would be offensive to a reasonable person in the community.
b No, because the car traffic did not block the neighbor’s driveway.
Answer choice B is correct. A private nuisance is a thing or activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with another individual’s use and enjoyment of his land. Here, the display attracted cars that were blocking people’s driveways every evening which would likely be considered a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use of one’s land. However, because the neighbor’s driveway exited into an alley, the car traffic caused by the display did not substantially and unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of his land. Therefore, he will not succeed in an action for private nuisance. Answer choice A is incorrect because the interference does not need to be constant in order for it to be substantial and unreasonable. Answer choice C is incorrect. Even if the display caused an interference that would be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to a normal, reasonable person in the community by attracting the traffic, the neighbor is not being affected by that interference because his driveway is on another street. Therefore, this neighbor is unlikely to succeed in a private nuisance action. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the neighbor thought that the decorations were tacky and obtrusive, the display itself is not substantially and unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment of his property. Therefore, he is unlikely to succeed in his action.
Nuisance
