This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: PROPERTY II OUTLINE Short Version Prof. Rothstein - Chad Propst Spring 2008 Bundle of Rights/Web of Interests Trespass to Land - dont forget about it on exam Hybrid trespass to land (modern rule) In order to recover in trespass for this type of invasion [i.e., the asphalt piled in such a way as to run onto plaintiff's property, or the pollution emitting from a defendant's smoke stack, such as in the present case], a plaintiff must show: 1) an invasion affecting an interest in the exclusive possession of his property; 2) an intentional doing of the act which results in the invasion; 3) reasonable foreseeability that the act done could result in an invasion of plaintiff's possessory interest; and 4) substantial damages to the res.- allows TTL of particulate matter o CAVEAT - its a TTL if it harms your land EX. factory emitting arsenic into air and then onto mans cattle farm, harming his cattle and property- only want to use the hybrid TTL if thats all you have- Why sue for COA of TTL instead of nuisance? o cant get punitive damages for nuisance; can for TTL o better statute of limitations w/ TTL than nuisance---------------------------------- Nuisance -- Assignment 28 I. Nuisance - Definitions A. Public Nuisance an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public , including activities injurious to the health, safety, morals or comfort of the public. 1. Usually a criminal charge brought by the govt. 2. The nuisance must affect the rights enjoyed by citizens as a whole. 3. Must affect a considerable number of people 4. EX. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development a. AZ law stated that any condition in a populated area that created a breeding ground for flies, rodents, mosquitoes, etc., that are disease-carrying constituted a public nuisance. b. manure from mass cattle feedlot threatened health and enjoyment of planned retirement community outside Phoenix, AZ. c. Holding Spur was required to shut down operations BUT Webb had to indemnify Spur for knowingly bringing development to an agricultural area where it was foreseeable that Spurs operation might cause problems. d. @@EXAM Coming to the nuisance in an area zoned for agriculture could require Ps to indemnify Ds in similar situations if P gets his injunction. 5. Generally, no standing for private individual to bring an action for public nuisance . . . BUT . . . a. Individual can sue for public and private nuisance in some jurisdictions if they can show particularized harm-- different in kind and/or degree b. EX. Public gets harmed; P gets cancer c. Its a policy debate about whether its better for govt to enforce B. @@Private Nuisance a substantial , nonphysical, wrongful, unreasonable interference with the use and/or enjoyment of an individuals land....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/18/2011 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Many during the Spring '11 term at University of Louisville.
- Spring '11