Select Page

Property II
John Marshall Law School, Chicago
Lewis, Paul B.

I.                  NUISANCE
II.             ZONING
III.         TAKINGS
V.                LANDLORD-TENANT
I.                  NUISANCE
Private nuisance
Interferes with individuals’ use and enjoyment of their property
Public nuisance
Steel mill produces steel for $5/ton, then sells it for $6/ton. Then, there is an individual that is harmed $2/ton.
·        Regardless of where liability is placed, there will be a societal benefit as long as transaction costs are low
·        The ramifications of distributal impact is the core of nuisance
Question that we should be thinking about is that the problem is reciprocal. The individual’s presence harms the steel mill by driving up the costs.
Should we let the steel mill owner harm the individual, or should we allow the individual harm the steel mill owner by giving a tax.
If society values the steel greater than the amount that it costs to produce it, the production should continue. If society does not value the steel more than the cost to produce it, from a societal perspective it is wasteful to make the steel.
Liability effects distribution not the effect
If there are no transaction costs, you’ll get an efficient result regardless of whether the rule of liability applies.
EX: place the liability on the steel mill, the steel mill will shut down b/c it will cost $7 to produce the steel, and only sells for $6
Even if the steel mill is not liable, it will shut down anyway
B/c of distribution costs, liability is irrelevant
This ties in to tort law
Assumptions made:
Need limited transaction costs
People bargain economically and rationally
Parties have enough information to understand what the ramifications are
Coarse says:
Need 2 people in order to have a tort-feasor
This stuff is generally bargained out
Law places the liability. Once the parties understand where the liability lies, they can negotiate in everyone’s best interest.
Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.
Supreme Court of N. Carolina, 1953
·        Plaintiffs own a nine acre plot of land in which they have a dwelling house, a restaurant, and a site for 32 trailers

ghboring land owners
Injury to property from dirt, smoke, and vibration
It is fair to both sides to grant permanent damages to the plaintiffs and vacate the litigation towards an injunction
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.
Supreme Court of Arizona, 1972
Judgment to permanently enjoin the def, Spur Industries, from operating the feed lot
The operation of the feedlot is a public nuisance to the citizens of sun city and therefore must be permanently enjoined.
§36-601, Public nuisance dangerous to public health
Any condition or place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies, rodents…
The feedlot produces over a million pounds of wet manure/day for the 30,000 head of cattle
Del Webb, as a developer, brought people to the nuisance and therefore must indemnify Spur for a reasonable amount of the cost of moving or terminating its business.