Question

The law often has to intervene, via a court case, to resolve nuisance disputes. The courts sometimes issue injunctions and other times they do not, imposing an alternative remedy.

A. Briefly explain the remedy offered in the case of Boomer v. Atlantic Cement. Explain the economic reason why the court chose not impose an injunction on Atlantic.

B. In the Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb case the court did not use an injunction, either. Briefly explain the court remedy in this case and why it was efficient.

Answer 1

Answer :A

Remedy offered in the case of Boomer v. Atlantic Cement :-

In the Given case Boomer v. Atlantic Cement boomer was the group of households of eight family Plaintiff who went to court just because Atlantic cement , a corporation operating in their neighbourhood had dust , smoke ,nuisance and damaging their homes . The court in the new york accepted the fact that there were nuisance from the defendent cement company and which has caused a great damage to the plaintiff but still it refused to enjoin the operation of the cement company and asked the cement company to pay for the cost of the Plaintiff home damage $185000 .Boomers were only desiring the cement company to enjoin the plant operation as it was nuisance to them and the damage awarded is not significant to them .

Boomer households unsatisfied and appealed the decision in the higher court of New york where also the case was not reversed and court stayed on same decision

why the court chose not impose an injunction on Atlantic:-

Court was of opinion the injunction cant be granted The problems with cement plants are universal. The technology required to eliminate the nuisance will come from the cement industry, not the Defendant.Hence economic operation cant be enjoined but defendent shall continue the operation untill it pays the damage .Thus it was fair for both Boomer and The atlantic company as per the court .

Answer:B

Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb :-

Remedy :-

In the given cases Defendent was the livestock feedlot owner and plaintiff who constructed home after the Plaintiff operation . The operation of the Feedlot was affecting the Residents in the city Plaintiff brought suit in the court praying for the injunction to be granted for the nuisance created by the Feedlot owner being the public nuisance so that it does not effect their health . the court granted the injunction with order to plaintiff to shut down its operation .

the case then was appealed by the plaintiff feedlot where the case was held to be proper and differentiate done in private and public nuisance . For private nuisance damage can be granted as enjoin operation would be a great hardshiip to Defendent .But feedlot was decided to be the public nuisance . It was decided place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies . . . " and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. Hence sun city falls under Public nuisance be ordered to enjoin operation .

Efficient how ?

For equity the court also crafted special injunction citing coming to nuisance doctrine as per which prohibits equitable relief to homeowner who construct home nearby nuisance and court asked webb for loss caused to feedlot as result of such move . The doctrine bars the relief .Hence effcient