Review Problems 3 and 4 (pp. 221, 223)
Problem 3 p221
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.
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...