Also known as:abatable private nuisances · private nuisance · abatable nuisance
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A private nuisance that can be remedied by injunctive relief or other abatement measures because the interference with use and enjoyment of land is ongoing and capable of being stopped.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Oil Refinery Emissions
Abigail Alvarez owns a home next to an oil refinery operated by Aether Technologies. The refinery repeatedly releases gases that drift onto her property and disrupt her outdoor activities. Because the releases continue daily, the court treats the interference as an abatable private nuisance and issues an injunction ordering the refinery to install emission controls.
Shipyard Night Operations
Aisha Ahmed lives across an inlet from a ship-repair yard run by Artemis Logistics. The yard performs open-air sandblasting at night that sends metallic dust and noise onto her property. After complaints, the yard adds equipment but refuses dust controls. The ongoing nature of the interference allows the court to classify it as an abatable private nuisance and grant injunctive relief.
Ariana Azizi installs solar panels on her roof. Her neighbor Alexandra Armstrong plans a house that will block sunlight to the panels. The proposed structure creates a continuing interference with Ariana's use of her land. The court recognizes the situation as an abatable private nuisance and enjoins construction that would cast the shadow.
Prah v. Maretti321 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.
His home includes a solar energy system which includes roof-mounted solar collectors located on the south side of the roof. The solar energy system supplies heat for the plaintiff's domestic hot water and space heating.
The plaintiff has invested $20,000 in his solar heating system.
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. The proposed structure would cast a shadow over Prah's solar collectors during the winter months, rendering the heating system inoperable.
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. 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.
The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court of appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which accepted certification.
Anika Anand operates a farm adjacent to land sprayed by Apollo Energy. Airborne pesticide particles repeatedly settle on Anika's crops and reduce yields. The recurring invasions constitute an abatable private nuisance. The court orders Apollo to cease spraying methods that allow drift onto neighboring property.
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co.817 N.W.2d 693, 704 (Minn. 2012)
Oluf and Debra Johnson are organic farmers in central Minnesota whose fields are certified under the National Organic Program. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company is a member-owned provider that applies pesticides to conventional farm fields adjacent to the Johnsons' property.
In June 2007 the Johnsons filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture alleging pesticide drift onto one of their transitional soybean fields. On June 15, 2007, winds of 9 to 21 miles per hour carried Status (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) and Roundup Original (glyphosate) from the Cooperative's spraying of a neighboring conventional field onto the Johnsons' soybeans. MDA testing detected dicamba below detection levels but no diflufenzopyr or glyphosate. The MDA nevertheless directed the Johnsons to plow down approximately 10 acres of the crop because of visual damage and the presence of dicamba. The Johnsons also notified their certifying agent, the Organic Crop Improvement Association. An August 27, 2007 OCIA letter stated that chemical drift may have occurred and that, if contamination were confirmed, the field would have to return to the beginning of the 36-month transition period. The Johnsons therefore restarted the three-year transition for that soybean field.
In July 2008 the Johnsons reported a second incident in which Roundup Power Max and Select Max (glyphosate and clethodim) drifted onto a transitional alfalfa field. MDA testing found minimal glyphosate. On August 1, 2008, they reported a third incident involving Lorsban Advanced (chlorpyrifos) on the same alfalfa field. Testing again showed minimal residue. The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's applications caused both positive results. The Johnsons took the alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional three years.
The Johnsons sued the Cooperative for trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery, claiming economic losses from the three-year transition periods, destruction of the soybean crop, increased weeding and reporting burdens, and adverse health effects to Oluf Johnson. They also sought a permanent injunction barring spraying within a half mile of their fields. The district court granted summary judgment to the Cooperative on all claims and denied the Johnsons' motion to amend the complaint to add the 2008 incidents. The court of appeals reversed in part. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Cooperative's petition for review.
Angela Acosta runs a dairy store. A state board sets minimum milk prices that affect her sales. The pricing scheme creates ongoing economic interference with her business operations. The court treats the interference as an abatable private nuisance and fashions relief that allows continued operation under adjusted terms.
Nebbia v. New York291 U.S. 502 (1934)
In 1932, prices received by New York dairy farmers for milk fell substantially below the cost of production amid overproduction and destructive competition. A joint legislative committee investigated the industry through public hearings and expert studies, producing a detailed report that recommended price regulation to stabilize the market and ensure an adequate supply of wholesome milk.
The Legislature responded by enacting Chapter 158 of the Laws of 1933, which established a Milk Control Board empowered to fix minimum and maximum wholesale and retail prices for milk. The Board issued an order setting a minimum price of nine cents per quart for milk sold by stores to consumers in cities and villages over one thousand population.
Leo Nebbia, the proprietor of a grocery store in Rochester, sold two quarts of milk and a five-cent loaf of bread for eighteen cents on April 19, 1933, thereby charging less than the prescribed minimum. He was prosecuted for violating the order, convicted in the County Court of Monroe County, and sentenced to pay a fine.
The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and by the Court of Appeals of New York. Nebbia maintained throughout that the statute and the order contravened the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Azure Solutions develops a retirement community near an existing cattle feedlot owned by Spur Industries. Manure odors and flies from the feedlot repeatedly invade residents' outdoor spaces. The court finds an abatable private nuisance and orders the feedlot to relocate or modify operations to eliminate the interference.
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)
In 1956, Spur’s predecessors in interest developed feedlots about ½ mile south of Olive Avenue in an area between the confluence of the usually dry Agua Fria and New Rivers, some 14 to 15 miles west of the urban area of Phoenix. By April and May of 1959, the Northside Hay Mill was feeding between 6,000 and 7,000 head of cattle and Welborn approximately 1,500 head on a combined area of 35 acres. In 1960, Spur purchased the property and expanded the feedlot operation from approximately thirty-five acres to one hundred fourteen acres by 1962, eventually maintaining between twenty thousand and thirty thousand head of cattle at the time of trial.
Del E. Webb Development Co. began planning Sun City, a retirement community, in May 1959 after purchasing twenty thousand acres of farmland for fifteen million dollars. Construction of a golf course started that September. Homes were first offered in January 1960. The first residents moved in during 1960. By the time of trial, Sun City had a population of approximately fourteen thousand people, and the development had extended south to within five hundred feet of Spur's feedlot north of Olive Avenue.
Residents of Sun City began complaining about odors and flies from the feedlot, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day, and Webb encountered sales resistance starting around 1963 in the southwestern portion of the development. Webb attempted to buy the feedlot from Spur but the parties could not agree on a price. Webb then filed suit alleging that the feedlot was a public nuisance because flies and odors drifted over the southern portion of Sun City, rendering in excess of one thousand three hundred lots unfit for residential development.
The trial court, after proceedings that included an advisory jury later discharged and special actions in the Arizona Supreme Court, found the feedlot to be a nuisance, permanently enjoined its operation, and awarded damages to Webb. Spur appealed from the injunction and the damages award, while Webb cross-appealed from the trial court's refusal to award attorneys' fees. During the appeal process, Spur agreed to and did shut down its operation without prejudice to the final determination.
What distinguishes an abatable private nuisance from a permanent one?
An abatable private nuisance involves ongoing or recurring interference that can be stopped by injunction or other measures. A permanent nuisance involves a condition that cannot reasonably be corrected and typically supports only damages.
Does intent matter for finding an abatable private nuisance?
Intent is relevant when the invasion is intentional and unreasonable. Continued operations after notice of harm can establish the required intent even if the actor did not originally intend the interference.
Can failure to act support liability for an abatable private nuisance?
Yes. Liability arises when an actor fails to abate an interference after learning of it and having a duty to act. Installing new equipment that worsens the problem without controls illustrates such a failure.
private nuisance
, or by the State under its complementary power to abate
nuisances
that affect the public generally, or otherwise. On this analysis, the owner of a lake bed, for example, would not be…