Also known as:relative hardship · doctrine of relative hardship · comparative hardship
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor considered in determining whether to grant injunctive relief against a tort or breach of servitude. The factor weighs the hardship the defendant would suffer if the injunction issued against the hardship the plaintiff would suffer if relief were denied. Courts apply the factor as part of a comparative appraisal of all equitable considerations rather than as a mechanical test that automatically denies relief whenever the defendant's burden appears larger.
Sources & Authorities· 11 sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Encroaching Gas Station Construction
Rhea Reynolds built a convenience store that extended fifty-eight feet onto Ronald Reed's adjacent parcel. Reed sued for trespass and sought removal of the encroachment. The court compared the cost and disruption Reynolds would face if forced to demolish and rebuild against the minimal interference Reed suffered from the mistaken placement. Finding the relative hardship to Reynolds substantially greater, the court denied the injunction and permitted Reed to elect damages or an easement conveyance instead.
Nighttime Engine Testing Dispute
Rajesh Rao lived near a newly built aircraft testing facility operated by Radiant Technologies. The company conducted high-decibel tests at night to meet a government contract deadline. Rao sought an injunction limiting operations to daylight hours. The court weighed the severe sleep disruption and health effects Rao experienced against the multimillion-dollar costs and contract penalties Radiant Technologies would incur from schedule changes, ultimately denying injunctive relief after balancing the hardships.
Overburdened Easement Access
Rachel Ramirez and Ricardo Rojas owned adjacent parcels served by a shared access road. The Ramirezes planned to build a residence that straddled both parcels and would increase traffic on the easement. The neighboring owners sought an injunction barring the expanded use. The court assessed the hardship an injunction would impose on the Ramirezes' development plans against the additional burden the neighbors would bear and denied injunctive relief after concluding the relative hardships did not favor enforcement.
Brown v. Voss38 Wash. App. 777, 689 P.2d 1111 (1984)
Web Crawler Trespass Claim
Rising Sun Electronics operated an online marketplace. Bidder's Edge, a data aggregator, used automated crawlers to scrape listings without permission. Rising Sun sought a preliminary injunction to halt the access. The court compared the minimal incremental load the crawlers placed on Rising Sun's servers against the broad disruption an injunction would cause to Bidder's Edge's business model and denied the requested relief after balancing the relative hardships.
eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc.100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2000)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
How does the relative hardship doctrine differ from the changed conditions doctrine in servitude cases?+
The relative hardship doctrine focuses on the comparative burden an injunction would impose on the servient owner versus the benefit to the dominant owner. Changed conditions doctrine instead examines whether surrounding circumstances have rendered the original purpose of the covenant impossible or obsolete. Courts may apply relative hardship even when the covenant's purpose remains viable if enforcement would create a severe disproportion of harm.
Supporting sources
Does the relative hardship doctrine apply only after a plaintiff proves a tort or servitude breach?+
Yes. The doctrine operates as one factor within the broader equitable analysis that begins only after the plaintiff establishes an underlying tort or breach. It does not replace the threshold determination of liability but guides the choice of remedy once liability is shown.
Supporting sources
Can a court deny an injunction under the relative hardship doctrine even when the plaintiff faces ongoing harm?+
Yes. When the defendant's hardship from compliance would be substantially greater than the plaintiff's hardship from denial, and other equitable factors such as public interest or plaintiff's conduct also weigh against relief, courts may refuse injunctive relief and limit the plaintiff to damages.
Supporting sources
Is relative hardship measured differently for preliminary versus permanent injunctions?+
Yes. The Restatement notes that the hardship factor receives different weight on an application for interlocutory relief because the order is temporary and the risk of extortion is lower. Courts therefore apply a more flexible yardstick when deciding whether to grant interim relief.
Supporting sources
likely to result to the defendant if an injunction is granted and to the plaintiff if it is denied. Id. at 726, 699 P.2d at 1078 (citing Annotation, Restrictive Covenants as to Height of…
to the parties. If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less…
," the Appellate Division held that the differences in these two figures were "so grossly disproportionate in amount as to justify the denial of the mandatory injunction." 47 N.J. Super. at…
TortsOther torts · Claims based on nuisance, and defensesUBEFoundational