Brief Fact Summary. Radiation leaking from a computer interfered with a store’s TV reception.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person responsible for a nuisance may be liable even though that person has used the highest possible degree of car to prevent or minimize the effect.
Issue. Does a private nuisance exist when a person has taken a high degree of care to prevent or minimize the occurrence?
Held. Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
A private nuisance is an actionable interference with a person’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of his or her property.
A person’s use of property should not unreasonably interfere with or disturb a neighbor’s comfortable and reasonable use and enjoyment of his or her estate. The test of whether the operation of a lawful trade or industry constitutes a nuisance is the reasonableness of conducting it in the manner, at the place, and under the circumstances shown by the evidence.
Also, the existence of a nuisance is not affected by the intention of its creator not to injure anyone. Instead, each landowner’s time of arrival will be given weight.
Nuisance is ordinarily considered a condition, and so does not need to be based on negligence. A person responsible for a nuisance may be liable even though that person has used the highest possible degree of car to prevent or minimize the effect.
Discussion. The right being protected by a nuisance claim is the right to quiet enjoyment of the land. This is not an absolute protection because the harm must be substantial and the interference must be unreasonable.