To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library





The nuisance complained of by these plaintiffs may have other public or private consequences, but these particular parties are the only ones who have sought remedies and the judgment proposed will fully redress them. The limitation of relief granted is a limitation only within the four corners of these actions and does not foreclose public health or other public agencies from seeking proper relief in a proper court.

It seems reasonable to think that the risk of being required to pay permanent damages to injured property owners by cement plant owners would itself be a reasonable effective spur to research for improved techniques to minimize nuisance.

The power of the court to condition on equitable grounds the continuance of an injunction on the payment of permanent damages seems undoubted. [Cc] The damage base here suggested is consistent with the general rule in those nuisance cases where damages are allowed. ‘Where a nuisance is of such a permanent and unabatable character that a single recovery can be had, including the whole damage past and future resulting therefrom, there can be but one recovery’ [Cc] It has been said that permanent damages are allowed where the loss recoverable would obviously be small as compared with the cost of removal of the nuisance [Cc]

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following