Nuisance

Legal questions about landlord liability when one tenant harasses another

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Leaseholds, Nuisance, Real Estate Transactions

Is a landlord liable for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment if one tenant harasses another and the landlord does not intervene in some way, either by trying to resolve the dispute or by evicting the harassing tenant? To answer this question we must distinguish two types of legal claims. In the first type of claim, the victim of the harassment claims “constructive eviction” and asks to be relieved of her rental obligations by moving out before the end of the term. In the second type of claim, the tenant sues the landlord for monetary damages for failing to protect her from the other tenant’s actions when the landlord had the legal power to evict the harassing tenant for causing a nuisance or otherwise violating the lease terms by disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the neighbor. Traditionally, the landlord has been held not to be responsible for actions of …

Legal questions about landlord liability when one tenant harasses another Read More »

Hawaii Supreme Court recognizes property right to clean air

/ Due Process, Environmental Law, Nuisance

The Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in In re Maui Elec. Co., 2017 Haw. LEXIS 284 (2017) (for majority opinion click here; for dissenting opinion click here) that the state constitution confers a property right to a clean and healty environment sufficient and that the Sierra Club has standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the granting of a power plant permit to a coal-fired plant because its emissions will contribute to air pollution and arguably violated standards contained in the federal Clean Air Act. Because the claim is based on state law and heard in state court, federal court prudential and constitutional limitiations in standing, such as led to similar claims being thrown out of federal court in cases like Kivalina, does not apply to the state court proceedings. The Hawaii Constitution guarantees each person “the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality.” Haw. …

Hawaii Supreme Court recognizes property right to clean air Read More »

“Massachusetts rule” reaffirmed: no liability if an overhanging tree damages neighboring property

/ Nuisance, Trespass

A Massachusetts court has reaffirmed the “Massachusetts rule” that “an individual whose property is damaged by an overhanging tree has no cause of action against a landowner of the property upon which the tree lies.” Shiel v. Rowell, 2017 WL 3616892 (Mass. App. Div. 2017), citing Ponte v. DaSilva, 446 N.E.2d 77 (Mass. 1983). The court noted the contrary “Hawaii rule” that does make a tree owner financially responsible if her own trees overhangs neighboring property and damages it.

No right to be protected from aesthetic nuisance (solar panels)

/ Nuisance

Courts traditionally refuse to recognize aesthetic nuisances. The mere objection to the appearance of structures on neighboring property is insufficient to constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Although some courts in recent years have recognized the possibility of an aesthetic nuisance, the Vermont Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the traditional rule when owners complained of ugly solar panels on neighboring property owned by companies that used the land to construct solar arrays. Myrick v. Peck Elec. Co., 2017 V. 4, 2017 Vt. LEXIS 4 (2017). “An unattractive sight — without more — is not a substantial interference as a matter of law because the mere appearance of the property of another does not affect a citizen’s ability to use and enjoy his or her neighboring land.” Id. at ¶5.

No right to be protected from aesthetic nuisance (solar panels)

/ Nuisance

Courts traditionally refuse to recognize aesthetic nuisances. The mere objection to the appearance of structures on neighboring property is insufficient to constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Although some courts in recent years have recognized the possibility of an aesthetic nuisance, the Vermont Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the traditional rule when owners complained of ugly solar panels on neighboring property owned by companies that used the land to construct solar arrays. Myrick v. Peck Elec. Co., 2017 V. 4, 2017 Vt. LEXIS 4 (2017). “An unattractive sight — without more — is not a substantial interference as a matter of law because the mere appearance of the property of another does not affect a citizen’s ability to use and enjoy his or her neighboring land.” Id. at ¶5.

Cell tower on neighboring property is not an aesthetic nuisance

/ Nuisance

In Laubenstein v. Bode Tower, LLC, 392 P.3d 706, 2016 OK 118 (Okla. 2016), the Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to recognize a cell tower on neighboring property as a nuisance. The neighboring owner complained both about the tower’s appearance as well as the flashing warning lights installed for safety purposes which reflected in the water on his property. The court based its ruling partly on the traditional rule that “nuisance claims founded solely on aesthetic harm are not actionable.” ¶11. Prior nuisance cases in the state either involved physical injury to land or offensive activity rendering homes uninhabitable.

High-rise apartment building held to be a private nuisance

/ Nuisance, Real Estate Transactions

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of municipalities to enact zoning laws that limit land to residential use and even to single-family homes. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). The Euclid decision suggested that apartment buildings might constitute nuisances and destroy the “residential character” of a neighborhood. Id. at 394–395. Is that a legitimate way to characterize apartment buildings and/or the people who live in them? In the 2014 case of Loughhead v. 1717 Bissonnet, LLC, 2014 WL 8774060 (Tex. Dist. Ct. 2014), final judgment at 2014 WL 8774079 (Tex. Dist. Ct. 2014), a Texas court actually found a proposed high rise building in the City of Houston, Texas, to be a nuisance. Houston is unusual in the United States because it lacks a comprehensive zoning law. The proposed structure would have been 21 stories tall and contain 228 residential units along with commercial development. The judge upheld a jury verdict that …

High-rise apartment building held to be a private nuisance Read More »

Odors do not constitute a trespass

/ Nuisance, Trespass

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the traditional distinction between nuisance and trespass law by holding that invasion by microscopic particles does not constitute a trespass. Owners located near a landfill needed to make a nuisance claim and prove unreasonableness rather that merely asserting a claim for a physical invasion. Babb v. Lee County Landfill SC, LLC, 747 S.E.2d 468 (S.C. 2013). Some courts have altered the traditional rules and have found a trespass when pollution enters the ground and causes substantial harm but the South Carolina Supreme Court rejected that approach

Private owner may not sue for public nuisance without proof of special injury

/ Nuisance

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the traditional rule (rejected now by some courts) that a private owner cannot sue for a public nuisance unless the owner can show special damage to the owner’s property that is different in scope or character to that suffered by the general public. Hale v. Ward County, 848 N.W.23 245 (N.D. 2014).

Nuisance claim against nuclear weapons plant proceeds

/ Environmental Law, Nuisance

The Tenth Circuit is allowing a nuisance claim to proceed against a nuclear power plant, finding it not to be preempted by the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. §2014, a federal regulatory statute. Cook v. Rockwell Intl Corp., 2015 WL 3853593 (10th Cir. 2015). Property owners claimed damage from the nuclear weapons manufacturing plant causes by releases of plutonium and other hazardous substances from the plant.

Scroll to Top