Issue Whether a plaintiff has a tort action for a defendants negligent

Issue whether a plaintiff has a tort action for a

This preview shows page 29 - 31 out of 51 pages.

IssueWhether a plaintiff has a tort action for a defendant’s negligent interference with the plaintiff’s prospective advantage which results in purely economic losses unaccompanied by property damage or personal injury.Holding and Reasoning (Handler, J.)Yes. A defendant owes a duty of care to take reasonable measures to avoid the risk of causing purely economic damages to particular plaintiffs comprising an identifiable class with respect to whom the defendantknows or has reason to know are likely to suffer such damages from its conduct. In summary, liability for the negligent interference with prospective advantage which causes purely economic harm depends not only on the breach of a standard of care owed to a particular class of plaintiffs, but also on a proximate causal relationship between the breach of the duty of care and any resulting economic losses. Trespass to Land and Nuisance Peters v. Archambault 1972 pg.420Rule of LawA landowner in Massachusetts is generally entitled to equitable relief to compel the removal of an encroaching structure upon his land even if the encroachment is unintentional and the cost of removal is substantial.FactsArchambault (defendant) unknowingly purchased a home in which the previous owners had mistakenly built a portion of the house on an adjacent lot. Peters filed an injunction against Archambault to have the encroaching portion removed.IssueIs a landowner in Massachusetts generally entitled to equitable reliefto compel the removal of an encroaching structure upon his land even if the encroachment is unintentional and the cost of removal is substantial?29
Holding and Reasoning (Cutter, J.)Yes.Although the law in Massachusetts is that a landowner may generally compel the removal of an encroaching structure upon his land even if the cost of removal would be substantial and the error was unintentional. The invasion is substantial and not de minimisNoteTrespass scenarioAdams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. 1999 pg. 423Rule of LawA possessor of land in Michigan proving a direct or immediate intrusion of a physical, tangible object onto his land is presumptively entitled to recover at least nominal damages in trespass, however, noise, vibrations, and dust are intangible objects and therefore do not give rise to an action in trespass but instead nuisance.FactsCleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. (Cleveland-Cliffs) (defendant) owned the Empire Mine, which operated 24 hours a day. In doing so, the mine emitted vibrations, noise, odors and dust. Adams (plaintiff) brought suit against Cleveland-Cliffs for trespass and nuisance based on the noise, odors, and settling dust. IssueIs a possessor of land in Michigan who proves a direct or immediate intrusion of a physical, tangible object onto his land presumptively entitled to recover at least nominal damages in trespass?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture