tort class notes 3, 08

Tort class notes 3, - Penland v redwood(p 786 Facts sewage changed into kojo 1 Was it a nuisance 2 Is injunction proper Was the nuisance

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Penland v redwood(p 786) Facts: sewage changed into kojo. 1) Was it a nuisance? 2) Is injunction proper? Was the nuisance intentionall- not intend nuisance but substantially certain – know if continue will be smelly and noise and interfere with use and enjoy of plaintiffs property. Yes. Is it substantiall interference – made sick – yes and does it repeatedly. Substantiall – intended to weed out minor interferences that happens in living in a society with other people. Unreasonable? Not so much on defendnets conduct but as resulting conduct – was resulting conduct an unreasonabkle interference. Different form trespass – here need to be substantial and unreasonable interference while by trespass we didn’t care. Herre – couldn’t barbeque, stay outside – not only unpleasant but people got ill as a result. And it happened several times a week not once a year. Was the defendant out of place in the area doing what they were doing? – arguably yes – no way to run plant without causing these things. If it is so near to so many houses.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/05/2008 for the course LAW 1 taught by Professor Hollister during the Fall '04 term at Fordham.

Page1 / 2

Tort class notes 3, - Penland v redwood(p 786 Facts sewage changed into kojo 1 Was it a nuisance 2 Is injunction proper Was the nuisance

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online