Legal Methods Case Law Review

CASE LAW Review Problems 3 and 4 (pp. 221, 223)

Problem 3 p221
I. INTRODUCTION

The principle law that this question is concerned with is the doctrine of nuisance. In particular it focuses on private nuisance. This doctrine with regards to private nuisance is intended to prevent annoyance and disruptive conduct of unreasonable interference with the rights of private landowners.

II. ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Elliot’s billboards interfering with sunlight making contacting with Greenleaf’s promotional appeal building model, which displays solar panels that provide heating and cooling for, air and water constitutes private nuisance? In order to determine whether or not Elliot’s interference classifies as a private nuisance, it must first be established whether Elliot’s use of land falls under the category of reasonable interference or reasonable interference.

III. RELEVANT LAWS

In Blum v Disposal Systems, Inc. (1987) it was held that, in deciding whether one’s use of property is reasonable, the usage of land must be used with reasonable interest in regards to adjacent property. “Although mere annoyance or inconvenience will not support an action for nuisance, a use of property that essentially confiscates or destroys neighbouring property is unreasonable and constitutes private nuisance.” This case deals with the disturbance of noise and vibration from the trucks resulting in the decrease of the breeding rate of sows. The court claimed that disturbance of the trucks with the hog farm was unreasonable and is private nuisance. Similarities may be made with Cassells International v. Avery Resorts (1959) is a case from another jurisdiction, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s intention of an additional ten-story on its hotel would cast a shadow on the beaches of the plaintiff’s resort hotel. “The doctrine of nuisance does not mean that a property owner must never use the property to the injury of another, but rather that the owner may not use the property to injure the legal rights of another.” The court found this to be private nuisance.

IV. APPLY THE LAW TO THE FACTS

By applying the principles of the two cases above to the facts of Greenleaf’s case, it seems plausible that Greenleaf establishing a basis for a lawsuit against Elliot will be dependent on whether Elliot’s interference is reasonable or unreasonable. The Cassells case has great similarity to that of Greenleaf’s problem however it is from another jurisdiction and may only be used as a persuasive authority for reasoning. In Greenleaf’s case, his promotional appeal has become less attractive due to the existence of Elliot’s billboards. The billboards can be said to be causing the building model to be “unfit for the use and enjoyment” of the land as in Cassells. However, Greenleaf must prove that Elliot’s interference is an unreasonable one. With regards to the Blum case, we must weigh up the interest of the individual landowner. Elliot’s use of property has a major effect on the use of Greenleaf’s promotional campaign through the decrease of attractiveness and potential customers. The use of Elliot’s property is not just a mere inconvenience but basically confiscates Greenleaf’s property.

V. CONCLUSION

Elliot’s construction of billboards has interfered with the enjoyment of Greenleaf’s property. This interference is falls under the category of unreasonable interference. Accordingly, Elliot’s interference with the sun’s ray making contacting with Greenleaf’s promotional appeal building model, constitutes private nuisance. It is highly probable that Greenleaf has a basis for a private nuisance lawsuit against Elliot.