Pram (p) v. Martini (d)
Minnesota (1982)
The plaintiff, Pram, brings a complaint to the court on the basis of a violation of his right
to “unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power.” The plaintiff’s residence was the first in the
subdivision, and was built in 1978-1979 with a solar system that supplies energy for hot water
and heating in the house. After the plaintiff’s residence was fully constructed, the defendant
proposed to build his own residence on the south adjacent lot to the plaintiff’s. The plaintiff
warned the defendant that his construction plans would adversely affect the plaintiff’s solar
system and requested that the defendant build his home slightly further from the lot line, but the
defendant disregarded the warning and commenced construction. Furthermore, the defendant
changed the grade of his lot without approval from the subdivision’s Architectural Control
Committee, increasing the adverse affects on the plaintiff’s solar energy system.
On behalf of the plaintiff we are asking for a temporary injunction to restrain and enjoin
construction by the defendant, pending adjustment of grade and distance of the defendant’s home
from the defendant’s lot line sufficient to preserve plaintiff’s entitlement to “unrestricted use of
the sun and its solar power.” Since the defendant’s house has not been fully constructed, it has
not yet caused damages to the plaintiff in the form of higher energy bills resulting from less solar
energy being produced by the solar panels. However, if the construction of the defendant’s
house is completed in its current location, the plaintiff will suffer damages as a result of the
defendant violating the plaintiff’s right to the sun for solar power. Beyond the potential damages
to the plaintiff, the defendant is not authorized to build given the new grade of his property.
There are three issues at stake here: the right to the sun and solar power associated with
purchased property and the expectation formed by the plaintiff regarding the future value of his
home, including those solar panels; the common agreement that one person may not use his
property to harm or interfere with another’s; and the precedent the court will set regarding the use
of solar power in its ruling on this case. We argue that the plaintiff, having bought his residence
with the expectation that he would enjoy full use of the solar panels installed on the roof, has a
right to sunlight and the energy produced thereafter. The defendant is knowingly harming the
plaintiff through his actions and preventing the plaintiff from using his property to the fullest.
However, an even larger issue is the precedent—if the court rules that the plaintiff has no
recourse in protecting his right to access solar power, it will severely discourage individuals from
installing solar energy systems on new houses lest the system is rendered inefficient by future
developments. If individuals cannot be certain that the cost of installing solar energy systems
will not eventually be recouped in money saved on energy bills, they will have no incentive to
invest in solar energy systems. Given the large benefits of solar energy to both individual
homeowners and the environment, which is a matter of the public good, the court should rule in
such a way that encourages investments in socially beneficial home systems.
The right to the sun above one’s property is a long-established right, as owning a piece of
property entitles owners to everything above and below their land unless otherwise specified.
Such rights were reaffirmed in the case of Edwards et al v. Sims, Judge (1929) when the court
held “cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum ad infernos [to whomsoever the soil belongs, he
owns also to the sky and to the depths].” The plaintiff should enjoy full rights to the sun above
his house. Just as the court granted Lee rights to the cave beneath his property in Edwards v.
Sims, the court here should grant the plaintiff the right to the sun above his home for the purpose
of solar power. In fact, the case for the plaintiff is even stronger than in Edwards v. Sims because
the defendant has no benefit from blocking the sun, but imposes large costs on Pram by doing so.
The plaintiff’s right to the sun and solar energy is further established by his being the first
homeowner in the subdivision. As such, the plaintiff bought the property and a residence with a
solar energy system included with the expectation that he would be entitled to the use of that
energy system. The plaintiff’s primary concern is not aesthetics or personal preference on behalf
of the defendant’s proposed home, but rather the proper function of his existing solar system. He
holds, instead, the reasonable assumption of a suburban community, lacking high-rises,
interfering buildings, or obstructive businesses. As in the case of Estancias Dallas Corporation v.
T.R. Schultz (1973), the plaintiff is entitled to realize his expectations regarding the value and use
of his property. In that case, the owners of a residence behind an apartment building, constructed
after they purchased their home, were granted a permanent injunction preventing the owner from
running an extremely noisy air conditioning unit. Having bought their residence with the
expectation that their home was in a quiet neighborhood where they could entertain outside, sleep
normally, and enjoy normal conversation, the court ruled that the apartment’s loud air
conditioning unit had harmed the plaintiffs both in terms of the value of their property and in
terms of their physical well-being. Since the defendant’s proposed construction prevents the
solar energy system from operating efficiently, the value of the plaintiff’s home is less than it
would be with a fully functioning system, and the plaintiff will be forced to pay for alternative
energy sources. Based on the ruling of Estancias Dallas Corporation v. T.R. Schultz, the plaintiff
should be granted a temporary injunction on the basis of his house being constructed first,
resulting in the plaintiff forming expectations as to the value of his house and the use of the solar
energy system—expectations now violated by the defendant.
Along with the plaintiff’s right to the sun above his property, the defendant lacks the right
to harm or interfere with another’s property in his use of his own property. The defendant is
using his home to injure the plaintiff, stripping the plaintiff of his rights, by building a home in
close proximity to the defendant’s property line. Likewise, in Edwards v. Sims the court noted
that there were limits to the right to use one’s property for any purpose: the use of property “to
the detriment or interference with a neighbor and burdens which it must bear in common with
property of a like kind.” The limitation applies to the defendant, who is knowingly harming the
plaintiff through the use of his property. The same principle held in the case of Fountainebleau
Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. 59-450 (1959), where the court ruled that the
construction of the Fountainebleau Hotel could not be stopped because the Eden Roc Hotel had
no right to interfere with the adjacent property. In addition, the British Doctrine of Ancient
Lights, granting first possession after 20 years, was struck down because it was
irrelevant. Although the court ruled in favor of Fountainebleau because “[e]ven at common law,
the landowner has no legal right... to unobstructed light and air from the adjoining land,” that
case presents distinct issues from the one at hand. For one, it involves competing businesses.
Both hotels were reaping profits from their beachfront locations, so the proposed addition by
Fountainebleau was merely a way to increase its profits by providing more space for visitors to
stay. Although Fountainebleau’s actions harmed the profits of the Eden Roc Hotel, building an
addition was a natural, competitive, and profit-maximizing decision. The plaintiff and the
defendant are building homes next to one another, not competing with adjacent businesses, and
the defendant does not gain in any significant way from building his home in a position that
obstructs the plaintiff’s solar panels. Therefore the case of Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. FortyFive Twenty-Five, Inc. only sets a precedent in the sense that it establishes that property owners
may not use their land to the detriment of another.
Finally, the court must consider the types of behavior this ruling will encourage or
discourage. It is well known that solar energy is beneficial to society as a whole because it
reduces both pollution and the need for fossil fuels and alternative, dirtier types of energy. If the
courts were to rule in favor of the defendant, it would lead to an economic inefficiency and create
a disincentive for homeowners to invest in socially beneficial projects, like solar power
infrastructure, in the future. There would be no guarantee of being able to fully use the solar
panels. In this instance, the court should look to the ruling in the old case of Haslem v. Lockwood
(1871). In that case, the court ruled to encourage behavior that benefits society as a whole—
those investing the time to collect manure off a public highway should have the expectation that
they will be able to return and carry away the manure in a reasonable amount of time so that they
benefit from their investment. Similarly, those investing in solar panels should have the
expectation that they will be able to enjoy the benefits of solar energy. If that expectation is
violated and the court rules in favor of the defendant, households will not invest in solar panels,
alternative fuels will be used in lieu of solar energy, and pollution will continue to rise.
The decision of the court should not only recognize that the plaintiff has a right to the sun,
but that asking the defendant to move his house several feet away from the lot line is a reasonable
request that will ultimately promote efficiency. The plaintiff built his residence first, installed
solar panels, and had the expectation that his investment in a solar energy system would
ultimately reward him with lower energy costs. The defendant, aware that his actions would
harm the plaintiff, began construction on his home and changed the grade of his property without
authorization from the Architectural Control Committee. Such actions constitute an exception to
the rule that property owners can use their land for whatever purpose they please because the
defendant’s use of his land is directly interfering with the plaintiff’s property. Furthermore, if the
court finds that the plaintiff has no right to the sun and solar energy, it will seriously discourage
other homeowners from investing in solar energy systems because they will know that their right
to access solar energy is not protected by the law. Solar energy represents a key clean energy
source that will reduce pollution and dependence on nonrenewable resources. As such, the court
should rule in such a way that encourages investment in solar energy in the interest of efficiency
and the public good.