50%(2)1 out of 2 people found this document helpful
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 . ). .
BLAW – EXAM 2 Study Guide - 13Generally 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 ownerfor negligently failing to warn of criminal activity. Said defendants failed to protect her