A fertilizer company had used bagged manure for many years to supplement the compost it prepared at its warehouse site in the suburbs for sale in its statewide retail outlets. Eventually, though, it became apparent to the fertilizer company that using bagged manure was too expensive and inefficient. Therefore, they stopped using bagged manure and began to receive manure in bulk shipments.
The plaintiff purchased the home next to the fertilizer company’s compost plant during the time it was using bagged manure. The plaintiff’s home used to be the fertilizer company’s headquarters before their expansion, and is the only residence in the area. The plaintiff never even knew the purpose of the plant until the fertilizer company began to receive the manure by truckload. Since then, at least two truckloads of manure pass the plaintiff’s house daily. The noxious odor in the immediate vicinity of the plant, including the plaintiff’s yard, is always noticeable and almost intolerable on warm days.
If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the fertilizer company based on nuisance, will the plaintiff prevail?
A. Yes, unless the fertilizer company’s methods are in conformity with those in general use in the industry.
B. No, if using bagged manure would substantially increase the fertilizer company’s costs.
C. No, unless the manure dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s property.
D. No, because the fertilizer company is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I will go with B.
Answer C is correct. A landowner has a cause of action in private nuisance against a neighbor who unreasonably interferes with the landowner’s use and enjoyment of his own land. If the fertilizer company’s use of manure unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his land, then by definition the fertilizer company has created a nuisance and the plaintiff has a cause of action. The other responses describe evidence that would be relevant on the issue of the reasonableness and social utility of the defendant’s conduct which are important considerations, but such considerations alone are not enough to determine the outcome of the suit, as they purport to do.
Answer A is incorrect. Evidence of the fertilizer company’s conformity with industry practice bears upon the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct, but is not dispositive. Where the interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the property is substantial and unreasonable, there is a nuisance even if the defendant’s activity is in conformity with the industry.
Answer B is incorrect. Evidence that bagged manure would increase the fertilizer company’s costs bears on the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct, but is not dispositive. The cost of using bagged manure will be weighed against the interference with the plaintiff’s use of his property to determine whether the defendant’s conduct is unreasonable.
Answer D is incorrect. An action for nuisance will lie only if one neighbor is affected. This fact will be relevant only in fashioning a remedy, where a sole plaintiff may not be allowed to enjoin the offensive conduct, but will be allowed to recover damages.
C
I can easily cross out B and D as NOT being the answer.
It is down to A and C.
The answer is C.
C
c
answer c.
I am between A and B, but I can’t remember the test to use here. Once again, I am grateful for these questions:) I think I’ll go with A.