Also known as: undue hardship defense · undue hardship
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A factor in determining whether an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable. The invasion is unreasonable when the resulting harm is significant and the actor could practicably avoid the harm in whole or in part without undue hardship.
After receiving a demand letter threatening suit, an insurer's adjuster prepared notes and reserve calculations. The opposing party sought the materials in discovery and argued it could not obtain equivalent information through other means. The court denied the request because the requesting party failed to show it could not obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship.
Corporate counsel interviewed lower-level employees at the direction of superiors to gather facts for legal advice on an anticipated dispute. The opposing party sought the resulting memos and argued it had no other way to learn the facts. The court protected the memos because the requesting party could not demonstrate inability to obtain equivalent information without undue hardship.
A wind farm operator continued full operations despite shadow flicker and noise affecting nearby homes. An engineer showed that limited shutdowns at key times would reduce the effects without materially harming output or profits. The court found the invasion unreasonable because the harm was significant and could be avoided without undue hardship on the operator.
An advocacy group faced potential enforcement of a statute restricting its speech. It sought to challenge the law before any prosecution occurred. The court permitted the pre-enforcement suit because requiring the group to wait would impose undue hardship by forcing self-censorship or risking penalties.
Susan B. Anthony List is a pro-life advocacy organization. During the 2010 election cycle, SBA publicly criticized Members of Congress who voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including then-Congressman Steve Driehaus. SBA issued a press release announcing its plan to educate voters that their representative voted for a health care bill that includes taxpayer-funded abortion. SBA also sought to display a billboard in Driehaus's district reading "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion." The advertising company refused to display the message after Driehaus's counsel threatened legal action. On October 4, 2010, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging that SBA violated the state's false statement statute by making false statements concerning his voting record. A Commission panel held an expedited hearing. On October 14, 2010, the panel voted 2 to 1 to find probable cause that a violation had been committed. The parties then began discovery. On October 18, 2010, SBA filed suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on First Amendment grounds. The district court stayed the action under Younger v. Harris pending completion of the Commission proceedings. After Driehaus lost his re-election bid in November 2010, he moved to withdraw his complaint. The Commission granted the motion with SBA's consent. SBA then amended its complaint to allege that it intends to engage in substantially similar activity in the future and faces the prospect of its speech being chilled again. The district court consolidated SBA's suit with a separate suit by the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes. COAST alleged that it had refrained from disseminating materials criticizing Driehaus's vote for the ACA due to the proceedings against SBA and desires to make similar statements about other candidates but has been deterred. The district court dismissed both suits as nonjusticiable for lack of sufficiently concrete injury for standing or ripeness. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on ripeness grounds. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA homeowner sued a tubing manufacturer after a product failure caused property damage. The manufacturer argued that adopting an alternative design would require retooling its entire production line at prohibitive cost. The court considered whether the alternative would impose undue hardship before deciding if the existing design was defective.
Around 2:30 a.m. on June 20, 2007, neighbors reported a fire that had erupted at the home of the Tinchers in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Investigators concluded that a lightning strike near the Tinchers’ home caused a small puncture in the corrugated stainless steel tubing transporting natural gas to a fireplace. The CSST was part of the TracPipe System manufactured and sold by Omega Flex. The resulting fire burned for over an hour and caused significant damage to the home and belongings. Following the fire, the Tinchers reported the incident to their insurer, United Services Automobile Association. USAA compensated the Tinchers for their loss up to the limit of their policy and received an assignment of liability claims. The Tinchers suffered an additional out-of-pocket loss because a portion of their claimed loss exceeded the limits of the USAA policy. In January 2008, the Tinchers filed a complaint against Omega Flex in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. They asserted claims premised upon theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, with the strict liability claim based on Section 402A of the Second Restatement. The case proceeded to a jury trial in October 2010 before Judge Ronald C. Nagle. The Tinchers offered expert testimony that the CSST walls were only one-hundredth of an inch thick and therefore inherently defective because lightning-generated currents were highly likely to perforate them. Omega Flex presented its own experts who testified that the TracPipe System met all applicable industry standards. They also stated that the lightning strike lacked sufficient energy to cause the puncture and that an attempted bonding clamp found disconnected after the fire may have prevented the incident if properly installed. After the close of evidence, the trial court denied Omega Flex’s motions for nonsuit and directed verdict. On October 20, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Tinchers on the strict liability claim. The jury awarded compensatory damages totaling $958,895.85 plus delay damages. The jury found for Omega Flex on the negligence claim. Omega Flex filed post-trial motions that the trial court denied, leading to entry of judgment. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment in September 2012. The Supreme Court granted Omega Flex’s petition for allowance of appeal limited to the question of whether to replace the strict liability analysis of the Second Restatement with that of the Third Restatement.
View caseAn intentional invasion of land use is unreasonable if the harm is significant and the defendant can practicably avoid it without undue hardship. When feasible mitigation measures exist at modest cost, the defense fails and liability may follow.
The requesting party must demonstrate substantial need for the materials and that it cannot obtain their substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Mental impressions of counsel receive additional protection even if the showing is made.
No. Regulatory compliance sets a floor but does not decide nuisance liability. The key inquiry remains whether significant harm can be avoided without undue hardship on the actor, regardless of permits or zoning.
…argue that the Third Restatement would accomplish a “radical departure” from existing public policy because it would impose “an undue hardship on plaintiffs in the pursuit of meritorious claims.” According to the Tinchers, the Third Restatement shifts the emphasis from the existing product to speculation of what similar product…