Nuisance is considered to be a tort in the common law which refers to an action or an object that causes annoyance, offence, injury, trouble or any other related issue and case. This paper will seek to explore nuisance as an act that is not warranted by the law or the omission by an individual to discharge duty. It can be happened because of such a case when the act or the individual becomes a reason that obstructs, damages, or causes inconveniences to the public. Nuisance can be private when the action or the individual (s) interferes with the rights of the specified people or public where the interference of the general public is not allowed and even forbidden as a matter of fact. Further, this paper will focus on such issues as establishing the remedies in the Boomer versus Atlantic Cement Company and identifying the elements in the tort of nuisance to determine liability of a tortfeasor according to this law (Bonfield 124).
It would be interesting to put into consideration and analyze the following case. there was an accident that touched the problems connected with the two companies. it was the case of Boomer versus the Atlantic Cement Company. The judge had to take into consideration the following facts that appeared to be very important and significant for the entire issue. as a matter of fact, the defendant who was an operator of cement plant, which was located in Albany, near the plaintiff’s neighborhood, was meant and, as a result, accused to cause injury to his property through such things as factory’s smoke, dirt and vibration. After taking into consideration and analyzing all the details of the case as well as thorough investigation, the New York Court of Appeal made its decision and award a sentence that stated that the defendant found guilty of nuisance for damaging the plaintiff’s property. It usually happens that the remedies for nuisance under the common law are paying damages, abatement and an injunction. The New York Court of Appeal considered damages and injunction to be the possible remedies in this particular case. As a result of such a case, the trial court of the city of New York awarded the plaintiff temporary damages with their request of injunction being denied.
The trial court denied the injunction, but allowed the company’s owner to “purchase the injunction for a specified amount;”. To sum everything up, it is necessary to mention that the Atlantic cement company had to pay the permanent damages. The amount paid as permanent damages would be “net present value” of any future damages that the plaintiff would suffer (Bonfield 156). The court denied the injunction because of the large disparity that existed between the nuisance’s economic consequences and that of the injunction.
The elements that were applied in this case include the following issues. The defendant carried out or performed an activity; and significant threats or injuries were caused. Other elements, of which this case consisted, included: defendant at fault, continued action constituting nuisance for “an unreasonable time,” connection of a complaint between the defendant and the nuisance, and the existence of threat or injury (Bonfield 158).
The facts that the New York court of appeal applied in Boomer versus Atlantic cement company case include: the nature or kind of harm caused, duration and extent of the disturbance or nuisance, value of the property according to the plaintiff’s interest, defendants conduct, defendants motivation, defendants feasibility of mitigating the harm, and the locality’s use of the land. To conclude, the court of appeal should have awarded the plaintiff the injunction considering that the company was doing the locals and the environment more harm than good. In this case, the “private nuisance-theory” lawsuit was not federal or state but called for an environmental action. Permanent damages sounded unusual since the landowner was precluded from complaining about nuisance in the future. Therefore the court offered “past damages” as the normal award for such a case (Bonfield 162).
The Wales Trucking Company committed private nuisance because their act threatened the comfort, health, safety, and the welfare of Mr. Culps and his family. As a private nuisance, the company distorted Mr. Culps’s use and enjoyment of his land interfering with his health and polluting his house. The dust that came about as a result of Wales Trucking Company frequent use of the road led to physical annoyance as well as discomfort of the Culps.
For Mr. Culps to successfully sue the company, the trial court will apply the important elements in the tort of nuisance to the facts to establish the remedies to be issued and whether the company is liable. To establish civil liability in this case, the court will explore two elements. The first one is that the defendant carried out or performed an activity; and the second one is that the significant threats or injuries were caused (Bonfield 154). Generally, the elements used to establish liability in this case include defendant being at fault, continuity of acts that have constituted nuisance for a long time, connection of a complaint between the defendant and the nuisance, and the existence of threat or injury.
The facts that will be considered in this case of Mr. Culps include the duration and the extent of disturbance, the harm’s nature, value of the property according to the plaintiff’s interest, defendants conduct, defendants motivation, defendants feasibility of mitigating the harm, and the locals use of the land.
Therefore Wales can be held responsible and liable because as the defendants, they are at fault; the company recklessly and negligently interfered with Mr. Culps enjoyment of his land. The dust that resulted from the company’s use of the road brought about physical annoyance, discomfort, and health problems in the end.
The interference caused by the company was substantial considering that Mr. Culps contracted bronchial asthma. The duration of the nuisance extended for a whole year making the company liable.
The company created substantial adverse effects on the environment creating hazards to the public safety and health as seen in the Mr. Culps’s bronchial asthma. The defendant, Mr. Culps can be offered remedies including damages, abatement or injunction considering the extent of threat and injuries as compared to the economic disparity. The company will escape liability if the argue that the authorities had allowed them to carry out the activity; all the same, the legislative authority will consider if the conduct was unreasonable (Bonfield 178).
In conclusion, the Wales Tracking Company will be held liable because their conduct involved substantial interference to the health, safety, convenience, and comfort of Mr. Culps. The conduct or action was continuing producing “long lasting effects as evidenced by his contraction of “acute bronchial asthma.”
Work Cited
Bonfield, Lloyd. American Law and the American Legal System in a Nutshell. St. Paul Minnesota: Thomson-West, 2006. Print.