Editing Property Singer/Outline
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1,495: | Line 1,495: | ||
#Entitlement stage -- focus is on impact to the plaintiff | #Entitlement stage -- focus is on impact to the plaintiff | ||
#Remedial stage -- costs and benefits of defendant's conduct | #Remedial stage -- costs and benefits of defendant's conduct | ||
'<nowiki/>''Boomer v. Atlantic Cement'<nowiki/>''''' (1970):''' Π sue ∆ for nuisance of dirt, smoke, and vibration emanating from their cement plant. They were awarded temporary damages, but not an injunction. '''Held:''' Where a nuisance has been found and where there has been any substantial damage shown by the party complaining an injunction will be granted. However, the court finds it should not strictly follow this rule because it would require the plant to close down all at once. The court should grant the injunction unless the ∆ pay permanent damages to the πs to compensate them for the total economic loss of their property caused by ∆'s operations. Permanent damages are allowed where the loss recoverable would obviously be small compared with the cost of removing the nuisance. Provides a remedy to the plaintiffs and limits the remedy just to this case, so it doesn't preclude public health or public agencies for seeking proper relief from public nuisances in a proper court. It also acts as a reasonable effective spur to research for improved techniques to minimize nuisance. Should not attempt to establish a policy for eliminating air pollution on its own because it is not equipped to do so – responsibility of the government. | |||
'' | |||
#'''Boomer''' | #'''Boomer''' | ||
##Atlantic Cement's behavior was reasonable on the social level in the sense it created overall social utility but the costs on the defendant were not fairly distributed | ##Atlantic Cement's behavior was reasonable on the social level in the sense it created overall social utility but the costs on the defendant were not fairly distributed |