Deep Quarries, Inc. owns a quarry in an outer suburb known as Quarryside. The qu

Question

Deep Quarries, Inc. owns a quarry in an outer suburb known as Quarryside. The quarry has been there for almost one hundred years. When it was first set up, it was far away from the city, but the outer suburbs of the city have now spread out to it and beyond. Quarryside is an expensive neighborhood, made up of homes set in secluded woodland surroundings.

In the early part of the 20th century, the quarry was very busy, but the increased use of brick and concrete as construction materials has produced a decline in demand for stone from the quarry. For many years, Deep Quarries’ principal business has been cutting and polishing small, high-quality pieces of stone for use in graveyards. It conducted this business without complaint from its increasing number of new neighbors.

Recently, Deep Quarries won a new contract, to provide large boulders to be used in making a breakwater at a yacht club. Work now begins at 7 a.m. each morning. Once a week, explosives are used at regular intervals throughout the day to cut stone from the quarry. Every working day, large trucks carry boulders out of the quarry in a steady stream from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. The noise and dust from the work can be heard and felt throughout the suburb of Quarryside.

Piers lives next to the quarry. He has sued Deep Quarries, seeking an injunction restraining the new use of the quarry. He says that his use and enjoyment of his property has been disturbed by the noise and dust from the quarry. He has also sued for money damages because of damage caused to his home as a result of the blast vibrations. He claims that tiles have fallen from the roof of his house and that windows have been cracked by the blasts.

You are a paralegal employed by the law firm representing Deep Quarries. You have been asked to draft an opinion regarding the potential of the court granting an injunction and regarding the possibility of money damages. Your opinion should address both the torts of trespass and nuisance.

Please use WestlawNext to locate the following cases and incorporate them into your opinion:

Wilson v. Interlake Steel Co., 32 Cal. 3d 229, 649 P.2d 922 (1982)

Bradley v. Am. Smelting & Ref. Co., 104 Wash. 2d 677, 709 P.2d 782 (1985)

Explanation / Answer

1. Private nuisance: coming to nuisance

The mere fact that Deep Quarries' quarry has been operating for nearly one hundred years in Quarryside does not necessarily mean that its activities cannot constitute a private nuisance to its neighbors, who are relatively new arrivals in the neighborhood. The fact that Piers has °come to the nuisance' is not in itself sufficient to bar his action, but it is a factor to be considered in determining whether the nuisance is actionable. Restatement (Second) of Torts §840D. The fact that Deep Quarries has long carried on quarrying activities without complaint from its neighbors does not necessarily mean that its new activities do not constitute a nuisance in the context of the changed nature of the Quarryside neighborhood. If the rule were otherwise, a defendant could simply appropriate to itself much of the value of the surrounding land by setting up its activity or offensive condition before the other land was settled. A defendant is required to contemplate and expect the possibility that the adjoining land may be settled, sold or otherwise transferred and that a condition originally harmless may result in an actionable nuisance when there is later development.

2. . Private nuisance: unreasonableness of interference

For an interference with the use and enjoyment of property to give site to an action in private nuisance, it most be either: (a) intentional and unreasonable, or (b) unintentional and an out of negligent or reckless conduct or abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. Restatement (Second) of Tarts §822. Because Deep Quarries intentionally engaged in the renewed blasting. The fact that Deep Quarries' quarry was in Quarryside before the area became residential is not sufficient in itself to establish that the quarrying activities cannot constitute a nuisance, but it is relevant in establishing the nature of the locality, which is relevant in establishing whether there is a nuisance by interference with use and enjoyment of property.

3. Private nuisance: extent and character of harm

As noted above, the §826(a) balancing process requires the court to look to the extent and character of the harm caused, as well as the character of the locality. Although the noise and vibrations caused by the explosions occur only on a week, the extent of the interference is severe on those days. Similarly, the noise and dust created by the trucks visiting the quarry begins at 7 a.m. every work-day morning. Although the law attaches considerable social value to productive labor, which is the primary purpose of Deep Quarries' conduct, it seems likely that that would be outweighed in the circumstances of this case by the considerable extent of the harm to Piers's use and enjoyment on those days.

Furthurmore Piers has suffered material damage to his property in form of damaged tiles and cracked windows. An intentional invasion may be regarded as unreasonable under §1326(b) even if the utility of the defendant's conduct outweighs the gravity of the harm, if the harm isserious and the defendant could afford to compensate the plaintiff and others similarly harmed while continuing to engage in its activity. Similarly, §829A provides that an intentional invasion of another's use and enjoyment is unreasonable whenever the harm is severe and great, than the plaintiff should be required to bear without compensation. Restatement (Second) of Torts §829k Whatever the social utility of Deep Quarries' conduct, it seems that it would not be reasonable for it to be allowed to continue in that conduct without compensating Piers (and others in similar situations) for the damage to his roof tiles and windows.

4. . Injunctive relief

If Deep Quarries is required to compensate Piers and other Quayside neighbors, it may be able to avoid the imposition of an injunctive remedy, which would prevent it from fulfilling its contract with the yacht club. Deep Quarries could, in effect, buy the right to disturb its neighbors for the duration of the contract. Alternatively, the court could tailor injunctive relief an as to permit Deep Quarries to continue its productive activity, while reducing the interference to the use and enjoyment of its neighbors' property. For example, the court might grant an injunction restraining Deep Quarries from working the quarry before 9 am, or after 4 p.m., and from blasting with explosives throughout any single day.

5. Public Nuisance: Standing to Sue

The Noise and dust from Quarry can be heard and felt throughout the suburb of quarryside so this is a public nuisance not the private one. It may challenge Piers stnading to sue.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse D
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.