Brief Fact Summary. Maretti (Defendant) planned to build a house, which would obstruct Prah’s (Plaintiff) solar powered house from having an unobstructed view of the sun.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court uses the balancing test, which compares the utility of use of the defendant to the gravity of harm to the plaintiff when considering a claim for private nuisance.
Facts. When the Plaintiff learned of Defendant’s proposed house location, Plaintiff complained to the Defendant that his house would cause interference with his home. However, Defendant continued with the building plans. The two parties live in a neighborhood, which has an Architectural Control Committee. The Plaintiff’s home was the first built in the neighborhood. Defendant’s home plans were submitted and approved as to its location on the lot, but Defendant changed the grade of the lot without notice to the Architectural Control Committee. Plaintiff sued Defendant to prevent Defendant from building his house. The lower court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment ruling that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff appealed.
Issue. Did the Plaintiff’s complaint state a claim for relief, which could be granted by a court?