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.
Issue. Did the Plaintiff’s complaint state a claim for relief, which could be granted by a court?
Held. Yes. Reversed and remanded.
The Plaintiff alleged a private nuisance. A private nuisance occurs when one landowner’s use of his property unreasonably interferes with another’s enjoyment of his property. Historically, the courts in this jurisdiction have not recognized deprivations of sunlight as a private nuisance.
This court, however, holds that the private nuisance law, as defined by reasonable use, is applicable to the case at bar. In considering a private nuisance claim, the court’s decision will rest on whether or not the use is unreasonable.
The lower court incorrectly applied the balancing test, which compares the utility of defendant’s conduct against the gravity of harm to plaintiff. The lower court concluded that because the Defendant’s proposed home was within the specifications of the housing code, no actionable nuisance could be found. This court concluded that compliance with local housing codes is only one factor to weighed, and is not dispositive.
The court held that the Plaintiff’s complaint did state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the lower court was in error to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court did not consider the Plaintiff’s statutory claim or the claim based on prior appropriation.
The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.View Full Point of Law