A private nuisance occurs if the plaintiff`s use and enjoyment of her property is significantly and unreasonably compromised by an object or activity. At common law, the only remedy for harassment is damages. However, with the creation of equitable courts, the remedy of an injunction became available to prevent a defendant from repeating the activity that caused the harassment and to set the sentence for contempt if the defendant violates such an injunction. While a public nuisance as such can only be prosecuted by the state through criminal proceedings, injunctions or physical diminishment, the same activity or behaviour can also cause private harassment to neighbouring landowners and thus lead to civil action. The behavior of a business in violation of a zoning ordinance creates a public nuisance, but can also be sued as a private nuisance by neighbors, who can thus prove a reduction in the market value of their homes. The legal and economic movement was involved in analysing the most effective choice of remedies given the circumstances of the harassment. In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., a cement plant disrupted a number of neighbours, but the cost of complying with a full injunction would have been much higher than the fair value of the costs to the applicants for the continuance. The New York court allowed the cement plant owner to « buy » the injunction for a certain amount – permanent damages. Theoretically, the amount of permanent damages should be the net present value of all future damages suffered by the claimant. Private harassment is a mechanism by which the law holds people accountable for trespassing on real estate that does not reach the intrusive level. In another presentation, we examine defences and remedies for public harassment and harassment. The crux of the matter seems to be the reason.
Admittedly, the term is flexible. It has many nuances and variations in meaning. In a nuisance case, the fundamental question always seems to be whether the use of certain areas can be considered appropriate in relation to all the facts and circumstances. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it became difficult to enforce the law of harassment, as competing uses of property often disturbed each other and the cost of litigation to resolve the problem became prohibitive. As a result, most jurisdictions now have a land use planning system (e.g., zoning) that describes what activities are acceptable in a particular location. Zoning generally outweighs nuisance. For example, if a factory operates in an industrial area, neighbors in the neighboring residential area cannot claim harassment. Jurisdictions without zoning laws essentially leave it to determine land use through harassment laws. As a general rule, only the State in which the public nuisance occurs may bring a public nuisance action. However, a person can sue for public nuisance if they suffer a certain type of harm. At common law, owners of real property (owners, tenants, etc.) are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their land.
However, this does not include visitors or those who are not suspected of having an interest in the land. If a neighbor disturbs this peaceful enjoyment, whether by smells, sounds, pollution or any other danger that extends beyond the property line, the affected party can file a complaint of harassment. Regardless of the type of nuisance, the encroachment on the property must be significant and continuous to be subject to an injunction. An application for an injunction typically requires the defendant to take specific measures to minimize the negative impact of its business activities on the plaintiff, ranging from limiting the hours of action to completely prohibiting the negative act. However, in building their reparations, most courts will try to compensate for the relative difficulties for both parties to the trial. In particular, if a going concern, as opposed to an individual, is the defendant in the claim, the court will attempt to minimize the economic impact on the business. In the early days of this country, land was abundant and neighbors were far away. As the population began to grow and urban areas grew, courts were asked to resolve land disputes. One of the earliest doctrines made by judges applied to property disputes in the United States, the law of harassment, was inherited from England.
This doctrine still finds its way into property disputes today. At the risk of being oversimplified, this doctrine is usually raised when a neighbouring landlord acts in a manner that can be described as disruptive. In the United States, there is a modern example of a public servant called « Inspector of Nuisances », but not with the role of public health in Section 3767[7] of the Ohio Revised Code, which defines such a position for investigating harassment, where this term broadly includes establishments where lust and alcohol are detected. In the United States, the role of Environmental Health Officer is performed by local government officials with the titles of « Certified Environmental Health Specialist » or « Certified Sanitary Officer » depending on the jurisdiction. The limits of tort may not be clear because of the gap between public and private nuisances and the existence of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
