Simulation Environmental Nuisance Lawsuit

Environmental Nuisance Suit INTRODUCTION Environmental nuisance means doing a right thing or a wrong thing in a wrong place, which mainly entails unreasonable interference with other person’s property. (Turner, 2004) The supreme court of Iowa State in the case of Bowman v Board of supervisors held that granting agricultural farms immunity from nuisance law suits would amount to unconstitutionally taking of a neighbor’s property. The action may be public or private, private nuisance involves where a harmful substance intentionally and carelessly flows to another’s property by land, air or water thus occasioning a trespass where the defendant will be held liable for damages while public nuisance entails an act causing damage to public health or obstruction. Under common law, courts opine that modern federal environmental law such as Clean Water Act has displaced nuisance laws but common law action can be inferred. (Turner, 2004) The facts of the scenario at hand The suit involves the defendant, a dairy farm v the plaintiff, a group of citizens. The plaintiffs live near the diary farm, the defendant accumulates and stores manure in lagoons, which smells horrific, the manure flows into the plaintiffs adjoining property and a state park and subsequently into a stream which citizens fetch water for personal use. Leakage of pipes and overflow during rain season causes this. The legal question to be answered The question remains whether the acts of the diary farm constitutes a public nuisance. (Bangle, 1990) To some extend the leakage of manure to the neighbor’s property and the stream constitutes an obstruction to a private person and an interference to use of the rights therein hence a private nuisance while the pollution of the stream constitutes a public health hazard hence public nuisance. The legal concept emerging includes. The concept of burden of proof arises. (Bangle, 1990) The general legal rule requires that whoever alleges a fact proves, in this scenario the burden of proving that the diary farm’s act is a public nuisance lies on the group of citizen. The other concept appertains to the reasonableness of the farm allowing the manure to flow from the farm to neighbors property, and whether due diligence has been sought to prevent the escape. This concept becomes relevant to this scenario because the law gives a ‘right to farm’ as a defense to the charges, if a farm exercises acceptable manure application procedures while under a prudent and a qualified manager. Similarly the technical practice and economic reasonableness provides that, mechanical equipments are prone to defaults and a certain aroma should be expected from manure. (Turner, 2004) Conclusion In conclusion, first, no health injury in relation to the diary farms act has been reported, secondly, the source proves to be of a high economic value for providing milk and manure, thirdly, the location suitability seems good having regard to the park, fourthly, the technical practicability is that the plaintiff should have reasonably expected an aroma from a diary farm and lastly, the farm has applied due diligence to avoid the escape by piping the manure and building a concrete wall. The mechanical equipments are bound to defaults and so the suit is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs. ReferenceC Turner(2004) Unlocking The Law of Torts (4th edition)London, Guttenberg press limited.R Bangle (1990) law of Torts (10th edition) India, Narula enterprise Press

Back To Top