Nuisance

Social utility is an often underused concept in the law of nuisance, and yet is one that is able to infuse the law of nuisance with a dose of spatial equality. The right to the city is an idea that has at its core the need for meaningful access to the city. All citizens therefore are able to share in the fullness of what the city offers; to inhabit the city and share in its spaces and spoils; to be present in and experience the city; and to imagine the city, its form, meaning and operation through the practices of daily life. Increasingly, however, cities are being constructed along a neo-liberal paradigm, which prioritises private property over the public, denying and excluding many on the basis of their (lack of) wealth. The law of nuisance provides for remedies which aim principally to protect the use and enjoyment of private property vis-à-vis other property owners. Traditionally, then, it has been interpreted within a predominantly propertied narrative, which has the effect of not only enforcing and perpetuating a propertied marginalisation of people in the city, but also has limited a normative understanding of the city and its socio-spatial dynamics to specifically the relationship between private property owners. This chapter seeks, first, to understand how the law of nuisance can be understood and developed within the context of social utility and the right to the city. Secondly, it looks at three cases that demonstrate the need to incorporate an understanding of social utility and the right to the city. I conclude that this is a necessary development of the law of nuisance because of the way it can redress the negative ramifications of spatial apartheid.

Published at (2014) 22 Torts Law Journal 160

In Marsh v Baxter the WA Supreme Court resolved a dispute between organic farmers, the Marshes, and their genetically-modified-crop-growing neighbour, Mr Baxter. Causes of action in negligence and nuisance each failed. The court denied that Baxter owed the Marshes a duty to prevent swathes of GM material entering their property, and denied that Baxter
unreasonably interfered with the use of their property. In terms of principle, the case is notable for a narrow view of recoverability of pure economic loss and for application of principles of nuisance to the battleground of GM farmers and their anti-GM neighbours. The judgment could be seen as a
step towards resolving the tension between those who adopt GM technology and those who eschew it, but not an entirely satisfying one.

Property shapes the way we talk about our communities and ourselves. It also, unintentionally, shapes the way we talk about the poor. Within property, the doctrine of waste reinforces notions of autonomy, privacy, and boundary-making for property owners, while leaving those without property searching for other ways to assert these self-defining protections. Likewise, nuisance assists owners' participation in their communities by dictating when individuals must account for harms their property use causes to neighbors. The law, however, provides few legal remedies for poor persons who are harmed by owners' sanctioned use of property. Through the language of ownership, property doctrines facilitate special benefits for those with property, while forcing those outside of property to seek other means to assert similar benefits. Owners-landlords of gap rentals, public housing authorities, and cities-often treat their poorest residents as problems to be managed rather than residents deserving autonomy and community. Housing units are destroyed, families are displaced, and homeless are forced further out of sight. The doctrines and rules that encourage these outcomes focus on the improper, the impaired, or the imperfect instead of facilitating discourse about how living environments promote human flourishing for these residents. In this way, our property system's rules and language create a class of persons who are under-propertied, under-housed, and under-valued.

What is the law on nuisance in relation to planning permissions? Can a person without proprietary interest claim an interference based on nuisance? If yes can he be awarded damages?
How much has the law changed following the Supreme Court's decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13?

The ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court in Ata v. Schwartz is best known today as a exposition by an Israeli court of possible remedies in cases of nuisance, suggested by Calabresi and Melamed's seminal article on property rules, liability rules, and inalienability. Yet the case's historical importance extends beyond the boundaries of this narrow issue: The defendant was a legendary company, a symbol of Zionist collectivism, and the lawsuit attacking it was viewed as a sort of selfish  provocation against these values. Moreover, the Court's decision, that celebrated individual rights and criticized the economic analysis of law, hid an important element of the decision – the import of economic analysis into Israeli law, in a discussion that had no parallel in the contemporary world. These aspects make Ata v. Schwartz an important episode not only in Israeli tort law, but in the chronicles of the various strands of Israeli liberalism in general, and legal liberalism in particular.

פסק-הדין של בית-המשפט העליון בפרשת אתא נ' שוורץ מוכר היום בעיקר בתור התייחסות של הפסיקה הישראלית בסעדים האפשריים למקרי מטרד שהוצעו במאמרם המכונן של קלברזי ומלמד על כללי קניין, כללי אחריות, ואי-עבירות. אך חשיבותו ההיסטורית של פסק-הדין חורגת מגבולות הסוגיה הצרה הזאת: הנתבעת בפרשה היתה חברה אגדית במשק הישראלי, סמל לקולקטיביזם ציוני, והתביעה נגדה נתפסה בזמנה שסוג של התרסה אנוכית נגד ערכים אלה. יתרה מזו, הכרעתו של בית-המשפט העליון, שהעלתה את זכויות הפרט על נס וביקרה את הניתוח הכלכלי של המשפט, הסוותה יסוד חשוב בפסק-הדין – ייבוא של הניתוח הכלכלי למשפט הישראלי, בדיון שלא היה לו אח ורע בעולם בשנת 1976. היבטים אלה הופכים את אתא נ' שוורץ לפרשה חשובה לא רק בדיני הנזיקין הישראליים אלא בתולדות הליברליזם הישראלי בכלל והליברליזם המשפטי בפרט, על זרמיהם השונים.

In this article, the author takes into consideration both common law and civil law traditions to put forward a comparative and transsystemic approach to troubles de voisinage and private nuisance. She demonstrates the hybrid nature of troubles de voisinage and private nuisance, emphasizing how they lie somewhere between real and personal rights at civil law, and property rights at common law. This hybrid nature highlights the relational dimension of ownership as well as the duties ownership may entail in both legal traditions. As a result, ownership tends to acquire a social dimension, becoming a socially limited exclusivity relationship. The idea of a socially limited exclusivity relationship is hinted at in the Supreme Court decision St. Lauwrence Ciment Inc. v. Barrette, and has recently been recognized in American property law theory through social obligation theory.

The issue of noise is becoming increasingly problematic in urban areas. Researchers have revealed that not only does it contribute to hearing loss, but also to cardiovascular disease, psychiatric disorders, and even to a reduction of language development and learning in children. Preventing these effects would require a significant decrease in noise levels. However, experts report that community noise levels are actually increasing. Moreover, zoning in many cities and towns is shifting to a model in which different types of land uses tend to be closer to one another, which increases the potential for conflict over noise. This article draws on the scientific literature on noise to argue that cities can alleviate this problem by improving noise ordinances and proposes a non-exhaustive list of measures aimed at reaching this goal. First, adjusting noise standards to reflect citizens' varying tolerance for noise at different times of the day would make noise ordinances more efficient. Second, measuring noise levels where the harm is caused, rather than where the noise is produced, would add flexibility to noise control frameworks. Third, by accounting for noise characteristics—frequency and impulsiveness—that play an important role in determining how unpleasant noise is, municipalities would be able to more adequately evaluate the harm that different types of noise can cause. While this list focuses on what municipalities can do to improve their noise ordinances, these recommendations can be applied to regulation by other levels of government. This article is mainly concerned with noise in mixed-use districts, and therefore focuses on improving regulatory frameworks in the municipal context. However, because the suggestions this article makes are aimed at making noise control frameworks more effective and efficient, states and the federal government can also incorporate them into their noise-control statutes and regulations.

Municipalities sometimes find themselves confronted with residential complexes, streets or areas where an accumulation of problems is negatively affecting quality of life. Occasionally, the problems reach a critical point and cannot be solved using existing instruments. In such cases, measures that are more drastic are needed.

The justifications for strict products liability and other cases of strict liability in torts are different and distinct. The United States judiciary has limited strict liability in tort law to seven distinct scenarios: (1) animals that are trespassing, are domesticated but vicious, or are wild by nature; (2) fact situations involving ultra-hazardous activities; (3) nuisance; (4) misrepresentation; (5) vicarious liability; (6) defamation; or (7) a workman’s compensation statute. 

Strict liability is imposed for harm caused by animals capable of inflicting extensive harm.  It also justifies liability for ultra-hazardous activities on the basis that an individual undertakes an activity that is inappropriate to the locale and poses great risk of harm to others.  Private and public nuisance justify strict liability if the activity in question also qualifies as an ultra-hazardous activity.  Misrepresentation places any resulting loss upon the defendant, even if innocent, rather than upon the innocent plaintiff.  In vicarious liability scenarios, a variety of justifications for strict liability exist: the elements of control, the theory of the business enterprise having the deepest pocket, and the allocation of risk. These justifications have each been reasons for holding employers strictly liable for the torts of their employees.  The law of defamation holds the publisher strictly liable on the basis that it is better to restrict an individual’s freedom of expression than to see an innocent plaintiff suffer from a loss of standing in the community. 

Liability is imposed and the corresponding right to recovery is given, not because of the plaintiff’s injury, but because the plaintiff’s injury was the result of the defendant’s fault.  When speaking in terms of strict liability, each rationale of recovery is different and distinct from the rest.

El objetivo de la obra es el de contribuir a llenar una laguna existente en nuestra doctrina a través del tratamiento multidisciplinar del ambiente natural en el ámbito de la empresa, con especial consideración a su incidencia en las relaciones laborales. Este enfoque multidisciplinar de la obra se hace desde un punto de vista eminentemente práctico. De ahí que sus destinatarios naturales no se limiten a los profesionales del Derecho, sino a cuantos puedan hallarse interesados en estos temas ambientales desde los muy diversos puntos de vista tratados, incluidas las Administraciones Públicas La obra se estructura en 3 partes: a) La primera de ellas, ""Ambiente natural, empresa y relaciones laborales: consideraciones previas"", pretende efectuar una primera aproximación al tema, tanto desde el ámbito de las ciencias experimentales, como del marco jurídico internacional de referencia. b) La segunda de ellas, ""Ambiente natural y empresa"", tiene como principal objetivo analizar las cuestiones más importantes relativas al ambiente natural en el ámbito de la empresa: legislación aplicable, la gestión y la fiscalidad del ambiente natural por referencia al mundo empresarial, las responsabilidades empresariales en materia ambiental. Finaliza esta segunda parte con un análisis de las implicaciones jurídicas del cambio climático en el ámbito empresarial. c) La tercera parte, ""Ambiente natural y relaciones laborales"", da cuenta de la importancia que en esta materia están llamados a jugar los principales actores de las relaciones laborales y, muy especialmente, los propios trabajadores, ya sea directamente o a través de sus representantes, legales o sindicales. Como podrá apreciarse, la obra cierra con un utilísimo índice cronológico de las disposiciones normativas citadas.