Brief Fact Summary.
A cement plant bothered its neighbors because of the noise, dust, and vibrations.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
When there is a nuisance, and substantial injury is shown, an injunction is appropriate.
It held, instead, that under the facts of that case, the proper rule was to grant the injunction conditioned on the payment of permanent damages to plaintiffs which would compensate them for the total economic loss to their property present and future caused by defendant's operations.View Full Point of Law
A cement plant conducted activities in the course of its business that created noise, dust and smoke, all of which wafted into the adjoining properties. This limited the ways in which the plaintiffs, who owned the adjoining lands, could enjoy their property.
Is the issuance of an injunction appropriate?
Yes, this nuisance warrants an injunction.
Justice Jasen, J.
The justice dissents on the grounds that the nature of the primary nuisance (air pollution) is a common occurrence in the area, and the sustained harm from the injunction will be significant by comparison. He is persuaded that an injunction is not appropriate under those facts.
The court reasons that an injunction is appropriate because the plaintiffs have shown that they are being harmed by the defendant’s activity. This is a large nuisance, coming from a large company. The defendant tried to argue that the harm from the injunction would greatly exceed the harm from the nuisance, but the court was unpersuaded.