Public nuisance interference with right held in common by public illegal

Public nuisance interference with right held in

This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 16 pages.

Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision– members of subdivision sued for permanent injunction from construction of turbine; said it was a nuisanceTest: whether use is a nuisance depends on the reasonableness of the operation particular to a locality and circumstances. It has a balance of competing interests.Activity is substantialis normal persons would regard it as “offensive, seriously annoying, or intolerable.” Torts against Property Owners– to determine liability, ask if a person harmed on the property atrespasseror an invitee. Customers are invitees, nottrespassers. What duty of care must property owners take to insure safety on their property to invitees? In . ). .
Image of page 12
BLAW – EXAM 2 Study Guide - 13 Generally no liability for injuries from defects about which owners had no actual or constructive notice or reasonable chance to discover . There was no proof Burlington employees knew of the berry, and they do have employees regularly looking for problems. Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets of Omaha – Sued no frills and shopping center owner for negligently failing to warn of criminal activity . Said defendants failed to protect her
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture