Also known as: gravity of the harm · severity of harm
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The extent and seriousness of injury or interference with another's protected interest. Courts weigh this factor against the utility of the actor's conduct to decide whether an intentional invasion of land use and enjoyment is unreasonable.
Republic Port operated open-air sandblasting across a narrow inlet from Olivia's waterfront home. Metallic dust coated her decks and furniture while nighttime noise prevented sleep. The court weighed the extent and character of this interference against the utility of ship repair and found the gravity of harm rendered the invasion unreasonable.
MetroBuild supervisor Carla ordered continued hoisting of steel beams during strong winds. A beam fell and injured pedestrian Nora. The court examined the extent of potential harm, its character as serious bodily injury, and the social value of timely construction to assess gravity of harm in the negligence analysis.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Neighbor Maretti planned a building that would shade Prah's solar panels. Prah showed the resulting loss of energy production and home value. The court considered the extent and character of the harm along with the social value of the invaded solar use when weighing gravity of harm.
Seller King knew three murders had occurred inside the home but said nothing to buyer Reed. The court assessed whether the stigma's effect on market value and desirability constituted material harm whose gravity required disclosure.
Courts consider the extent of the harm, its character, the social value of the invaded use, the suitability of the use to the locality, and the burden on the plaintiff to avoid the harm. These factors appear in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 827 and guide the unreasonableness inquiry under § 826.
Supporting sources
An intentional invasion is unreasonable if the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the conduct. The comparison decides whether the defendant must pay damages or face an injunction.
Supporting sources
Yes. Negligence analysis evaluates the magnitude of risk by including the gravity or severity of threatened harm together with its probability, the number of people exposed, and the social value of the threatened interests.
Supporting sources
…the law of private nuisance requires the court to make "a comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests and to weigh the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the utility of the defendant's conduct." The circuit court concluded: "A comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests, keeping in mind the omissions and…