321 N.W.2d 182 (Wis. 1982)
The plaintiff, Frank Prah, owns a residence in a subdivision in the Town of Muskego that he constructed during 1978 or 1979.1
His home includes a solar energy system which includes roof-mounted solar collectors located on the south side of the roof.2 The solar energy system supplies heat for the plaintiff's domestic hot water and space heating.3
The plaintiff has invested $20,000 in his solar heating system.4
In 1980, the defendant, Richard D. Maretti, acquired the vacant lot immediately south of Prah's property and began planning to build a two-story residence whose roof would extend to within twelve feet of the lot line.5 The proposed structure would cast a shadow over Prah's solar collectors during the winter months, rendering the heating system inoperable.6
Prah informed Maretti about the solar system and asked him to adjust the location of the new home to avoid interference with the collectors, but Maretti declined to modify his plans.7 Prah then filed suit in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, alleging that the construction would constitute a private nuisance and seeking injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages.8
The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.9 On appeal, the court of appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which accepted certification.10
Whether the complaint states a claim for relief based on common law private nuisance?11
One is subject to liability for a private nuisance if his conduct is a legal cause of an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.12 The invasion is either (a) intentional and unreasonable, or (b) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities.13 The private nuisance doctrine has traditionally been employed to balance the conflicting rights of landowners.14 The law of private nuisance is a flexible doctrine that seeks to balance the interests of the landowner and his neighbor.15
Yes. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff has made a substantial investment in a solar energy system, that the defendant's proposed construction will substantially interfere with the operation of the solar energy system, that the interference will be unreasonable, and that the plaintiff will suffer substantial harm.16 These allegations satisfy the elements of the Restatement reasonable use doctrine.17 The facts permit a finding of unreasonableness after balancing the gravity of the harm against the utility of the defendant's conduct.18
The complaint states a claim for relief based on common law private nuisance.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Callow dissents on the ground that the majority improperly analogizes this case to spite fence precedents.20 Those precedents require malice that is absent here.21 He maintains that the three historical policies limiting protection for sunlight access remain valid.22
A landowner's right to develop property in compliance with ordinances and restrictions is fundamental.23 The plaintiff's unusually sensitive solar use cannot convert lawful construction into an actionable invasion.24 Callow concludes that the facts do not give rise to a cause of action for private nuisance.25
Whether an action for private nuisance may be brought to protect a person's access to sunlight for the purpose of operating a solar energy system?26
The law of private nuisance is not limited to the protection of interests in land that were recognized at common law.27 Recognition of a nuisance claim for unreasonable obstruction of access to sunlight will not prevent land development or unduly hinder the use of adjoining land.28 The result in each case depends on whether the conduct complained of is unreasonable under the Restatement factors.29
Yes. The plaintiff's solar collectors constitute a protected interest in the use and enjoyment of land.30 Access to sunlight now serves as an energy source rather than merely an aesthetic or illumination interest.31 The defendant's proposed home would render the system inoperable during winter months.32 The flexible nuisance doctrine therefore applies to balance the plaintiff's substantial investment against the defendant's development plans.33
An action for private nuisance may be brought to protect a person's access to sunlight for the purpose of operating a solar energy system.34
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Callow dissents on the ground that the majority improperly analogizes this case to spite fence precedents. Those precedents require malice that is absent here. He maintains that the three historical policies limiting protection for sunlight access remain valid.
A landowner's right to develop property in compliance with ordinances and restrictions is fundamental. The plaintiff's unusually sensitive solar use cannot convert lawful construction into an actionable invasion. Callow concludes that the facts do not give rise to a cause of action for private nuisance.