ch. 16
NUISANCE
619
10月22日分(week4)
valuc ofthc quarly was“
wcll ovcr紛 300,000."Thc tnal court found that thc
quarry amounted to a nuisancc and ordcrcd that all quanying opcrations
ccasct On appcal,力 c″
冴,for plaintifFs,Thc in,unCt10n is propcr dcspitc thc
contcntion that its issuancc will causc dcfcndants“grossly disproportionatc
ア
hardship米 * *in comparison、
ith thc* 求 *lcsscr in,uriCS plaintirs will
suIFer''frorn continucd quarrying.AIso“ thc fact that somc of thc plaintr偽
have obtzlincd damagcs'' in prior iawsuits docs not prccludc thcm from
obtaining iniunctiVe rellci
“Whlle wc rccognizc that in propcr cascs,cspcdally thosc involving
busincsses upon which thc public's intcrcst, or nCCCssity, dcpcnds, thc
mattcr of`comparatiwc ittury'ShOuld be 31WCn prolnincnt consideratlon,this
court is among thosc holding that whcrc damagcs in an action zlt law、
vill
not gi、
c plaintitt an adcquatc rcmcdy against a busincss opcratcd in such a
way that it has bccomc a nuisancc, and such opcration causcs plainti偽
substantial and irrcmediablc in,ury,thcy arc cntiticd,as a mattcr of right,to
havc samc abated, by in,unctlon `米* * nosvithstanding thc comparativc
bcncflts confcrred thcrcby or thc comparativc in,ury rcsulting thcrcfrom.'
Scc Kcnyon v.Edmundson,800H.3,193P.739."
BOOMER v.ATLANTIC CEMENT CO.
Coult of Appcals of Ncw York,1970
26 N Y 2d 219, 309 N Y S2d 312, 257 N E 2d 870
BERGAN,JudgC.[FULD,CJ.,and BuRKE and SCILEPPI,JJ.,COnCurring.]
Dcfcndant operatcs a largc ccmcnt plant ncar Albany.Thcsc arc actlons
for in,unct10n and damagcs by ncighboring iand owncrs allcgin3 in,ury tO
propcHy frorn dirt, smoke and vibration cmantting from thc plant.A
nuisancc has bccn found attcr trial,tcmpo章
lly darnagcs havc bccn allowed;
but an iniunCtiOn has bccn dcnicd.*
Thc publlc concern wlth air pollution arising frorn many sourccs in
industry and in transportatlon is currcntly accordcd cvcr widcr rccognition
accompanied by a growing scnsc of responsibllity in Statc and Fedcral
Governmcnts to control it.Cemcnt plants arc obvious sourccs of air
pollution in thc ncighborh00ds whcrc thcy operatc`
But thcrc is now bcforc thc court priwate lltiga1lon in、 vhich individual
propcHy owncrs have sought spccnc rclief froln a sll革
卦c plant OpCratlon.
Thc thrcshold qucstion raiscd by thc divislon of vicw on dlis appcal ls
whcthcr thc court should rcsolvc thc lltigation bcぃ
vccn thc partics now
bcforc it as cquitably as sccms possiblc,or whcthcr,sccking promotion of
thC 3Cnc車 1l publlc wclfare, it should channcl privatc llti3atlon into broad
public objcctivcs.
ネEd note:Thc trlal court found that``「 tlhc plaintiIFs from dust, ncvcrthclcss, I flnd 米米 *
company insta■ cd at grcat cxpcnsc thc most that Atiantic in thc opcration of its ccmcnt plant
/allablc to prcでnt rhc dis‐ * 求 *crcated a nuisancc insofar as thc lands of
cttcicnt ac、tccs a■
chargc of dust and pollutcd air inlo thc atmo‐ thc plaint』 ほ arc conccrncd'' Damagcs 覇
たrc
sphcrc''It wcnt ont `ツuthOu3h the cvidcncc in
3rantcd but an injunction was dcnicd bccausc it
this casc cstablishcs that Atiantic took evc守
would producc“ grcat* * *hardship''
avallablc and possiblc prccautlon to protect thc
620
LIABILIfIY WITHOUTミ
10月22日分(week4)
A court perforins its csscntial ttnctlon、
巡
LT
Pt. 2
ア
hcn it dccidcs the ri3htS Of
partics bcforc it.Its dccislon of privatc controvcrsics may somctimcs 3rcatly
afFcct publlc issucs.Largc qucstlons oflaw arc ottcn rcsolvcd by thc lnanncr
in which privatc lltigation is dccidcd,But this is noHnally an incidcnt to thc
court's maill ttnctlon to scttlc controvcrsy. It is a rarc cxcrcisc of judicial
cr to usc a dccislon in pd、atc litigation as a purposc血
1l mcchanisln to
po、ア
achicvc dircct publlc obicctiVCS grcatly bcyond thc r堆 士ltS and intcrcsts
bcforc thc court.
EIFcctiwc control of air p01lutlon is a problem
cvcn with thc i11l publlc and financial powcrs of 30Vernmcnt.In largc
mcasurc adcquatc tcchnical proccdurcs arc yet to bc dcvclopcd and somc
that appcar possible mtt bc cconomically impracticablc
lt sccms apparcnt that thc amclloratlon of air pollutlon will dcpcnd on
tcchnical rcscarch in grcat dcpth;on a carcnHly balanccd considcratlon of
thc cconoIIlic impact of closc rcgulatlon;and of thc acmal cffcct on publlc
hcalth lt is llkcly to rcquirc massivc publlc cxpcnditurc and to dcmand
morc than any 10cal cornlnunity can accompllsh and to dcpcnd on rcglonal
and intcrstatc controls.
A court should not ttt to do this on its own as a b〕 Lproduct of pr市 atc
lltigation and it sccms manifcst that thc ,udicial cstabllshmcnt is ncithcr
cquippcd in thc llrnitcd naturc of any judgmcnt it can pronouncc nor
とct市c pollcy for thc clllnination
prcpared to lay down and implcmcnt an c■
of air pollutlon.This is an arca bcyond thc circurnltrcncc of onc prl、
atc
la、suit.It is a dircct rcsponsiblllty for governmcnt and should not thus bc
undcrtakcn as zln irlcidcnt to solving a disputc bcいvccn propcH7 owncrs and
a singic ccmcnt plant― onc of many― in thc HudsOn lu、 crw■ 1lcy,
Thc ccmcnt inaking opcrations of dcfcndant havc bccn found by thc
court at Spccial Tcrm to ha■ 7c damaged thc ncarby prOpcrtics of plaintinも in
thcsc 6vO actlons.That court, as it has bccn notcd, accordingly found
dcfcndant rnaintaincd a nuisancc and this has bccn attrmed at thc AppclLtc
Dl宙slon.Thc total damagc to plaintittS' propcrtics is, howcvcr, rclat市
c呼
sIIlall in comparison with thc valuc of dcfcndant's opcration and tttth thc
conscqucnccs ofthc in,unction which plainti宜 もscck.
Thc ground for the dcnial of in,unctiOn, noい
withstanding the finding
both that thcre is a nuisancc and that plaintiffs havc bccn damagcd substan‐
tially,is thc lzBrgc disparitt in cCOnOIIlic conscqucnccs ofthc nuisancc and of
thc in,unctiOn.This thconF Cannot,howcvcr,bc sustaincd without ovcrrul‐
in3 a doctrinc h7hich has bccn consistcntly rcttmrincd in scvcral lcading
/cr bccn disavowcd herc,namcly that
cascs in this court and which has nc■
/hcrc
a
nuisancc
has
bccn
fOund
and
whcrc
thcrc has bccn any substantial
■
damagc shown by thc p釘
呼 COmplaining an in,unctiOn will bc grantcd.
Thc ruic in New York has bccn that such a nuisancc w11l bc cn,olncd
although rllarkcd disparity bc shoミ
ミ in cconolnic conscqucncc bcsvccn thc
cttcct of thc in,unCt10n and thc crcct ofthc nuisancc.
Thc prOblcm of disparitt in ccOnomic conscquencc was sharply in focus
in Wllaicn v Unlon Bag&Papcr Co,208N.Y.1,101N.E.805.A pulp mlll
prcscnt
Ch. ■ 6
NUISANCE
621
10月22日分(week4)
entalllng an invcstincnt of FnOrC than a rninlon d。
1lars pollutcd a strcam in
H/hich plaintHl wh0 0Wncd a FarFIl, Was “
a lowcr ripadan owncr''.Thc
cconornic loss to plaintiff from this pollution was small.This court,rcvcrsing
thc Appcllatc Divislon,rcinstated thc in,unction grantcd by thc Special Tc....
against thc argumcnt of the rl111l owncr that in vicw Of``thc sllght advantagc
to plaintir and thc grcat loss that ▼
た1l bc in■ lctcd on dcfcndant'' an
irttunct10n should not be grantcd 2,101N.E.p.805).“
o,・
Such a balancing
Of in,urics cannot bc ,uStiflcd by thc circumstanccs of this casc'',Judgc
Wcrncr notcd(p.4,101N.E.p.805),Hc cOntinucdi“
Aユthough thc damagc
to thc plaintir may bc sl13ht as comparcd with the dcFcndant's exPcnsc Of
abating thc conditlon,that is not a good rcason for rcttsing an in,unctiOn"
o.5,101N.E.p.806).
Thus the unconditional in,unCtiOn 3rantcd at Special Tcrlm was reinstat‐
cd.Thc nllc laid dom in that casc, thcn, ls that whcncvcr thc damagc
rcsulting frorn a nuisancc is found not “ unsubstantial'ち vlZ,, 鱗
100 a ycar,
iniunCtiOn would follow.This stzltCS a RllC that had bccn followcd in this
court with markcd consistcncy(McCaHy v.Natural Carbonic GzRS CO., 189
N.Y.40,81N.E.549,Strobcl v.Kcrr Salt Co., 164N.Y.303,58N.E.142,
Campbcll v.Scarnan,63N.Y.568).
Thcrc arc cascs whcrc in〕 unct10n has bccn dcnicd.ヽ
仁
cCann v.Chaslm
Powcr Co.,21l N.Y.301, 105N.E.416 1s onc ofthcm.Therc,howcvcr,thc
damagc shown by plaintitt was not only unsubstantial,it was non‐
cxistent`
PlaintifFs owncd a rocky bank of thc stream in wllich deFcndant had iliscd
thc lcvcl of thc watcr.This had no cconornic or othcr adversc conscqucncc
to plaintiffs,and thus iniunCtNC rclicf was dcnicd.SiIIlilar is the basis fbr
dcnial of iniunctiOn in Forstl■ ann v.Joray H01ding Co., 244N`Y.22, 154
N.E. 6う2H/hcrc no bcncit to plaintirs could bc sccn frorn thcよ
寸unctiOn
sought(p.32,154N.E.655).ThuS ii Within whalcn v.Unlon Bag&Papcr
Co。,supra which authoritativcly statcs thc rulc in Ncw York,thc damagc to
not
plainttt in thcsc prcscnt cascs from dcfcndant's ccmcnt plant is “
unsubstantial'',an in,unctiOn should lbllow.
Although thc court at Spccial Tc....and thc Appenatc Division hcld that
in,unCt10n should be dcnicd,it was found that plaintitt had bccn damaged
in▼ rlous spccinc amounts up to thc tilnc of thc trial and damages to thc
rcspcctivc plaintitt wcrc awardcd for those amounts.Thc c■
もct ofthis was,
iniunCt10n having bccn dcnicd,plaintirFs could maintain succcssivc actions
at iaw for damages thcrcattcr as furthcr damagc was incurrcd
Thc coui at Spccial Tcrin also rbund thc amount of pc.11.ancnt damagc
attributablc to cach plaintin; for thc guidancc of thc partics in thc cvcnt
both sidcs stipulatcd to thc paymcnt and acccptancc of such Pc.1.・
ancnt
damagc as a sctdemcnt of all thc controvcrsics among the partics.The total
of permancnt damagcs to all plaintiffs thus found was研
185,000.This basis
of adjustlncnt has not rcsultcd in any stipulatlon by thc pzBrtics.
This rcsult at Spccial Tc....and at thc Appc■
atc Divislon is a dcparturc
from a rulc that has bccomc settlcd;but to follow thc rulc lltcrally in thcsc
cascs would bc to closc down thc plant at oncc.This court is IⅢ
lly agrccd to
622
LIABILIfIY WITHOUT FAULT
Pt. 2
10月22日分(week4)
avoid that immcdiatcけ
drastic remcdy,thc diffcrcncc in vicw is how bcst to
avold it,*
Onc alternativc is to grant thc in,unCt10n but postponc its cnLct to a
spccified血 】
turc date to givc opportunity for tcchnical advanccs to pcrinit
dcfcndant to clirninatc thc nuisancc; anothcr is tO grant thc iniunction
conditioncd on thc paymcnt of pcrmancnt damagcs to plaintitt which
would compcnsatc thcm for thc total econoIIxic loss to thcir propcrty
的 rC Causcd by dcfcndant's opcratlons.For rcasons which■
prcscnt and知
bc dcvclopcd thc court chooscs thc lattcr altcrnat貯
c.
If thc in,unCt10n wcrc to bc grantcd unicss within a short pcrlod―
18 months― 一―
thC nuisancc bc abated by improvcd mcthods,thcrc would bc
no assurancc that any significant tcchnictt irllprovcmcnt would occur.
7ill
c.3・
,
Thc partics could sctdc this privatc lltigatlon at any tilnc if defcndant
paid cnough moncy and thc irnlnincnt thrcat of closing thc plant wOuld
bulld up thc prcssurc on dcfcndant.If thcrc werc no lmprovcd tcchniqucs
found,thcrc would incviably bc appllcations to thc court at Spccial Tcrm
for cxtenslons of tirnc to pcrforin on sho■ 7ing of 300d faith cttbrts to nnd
such tcchniqucs.
Morcovcr,tcchniqucs to clllninatc dust and othcr annoyin3 by‐
products
of ccmcnt mattng arc unllkcけ
tO bC dCvclopcd by any rcscarch thc dcfcn‐
ア
dant can undcrtakc within any short pcrlod,but、
11l dcpend on thc total
rcsourccs ofthc ccmcnt industry natlonwidc and throllghout thc■
orid.Thc
problcm is univcrsal whcrcvcr ccmcnt is lnadc.
For obvlous rcasons thc ratc of thc rcscarch is bcyond control of
dcfcndant.If at thc cnd of 18 months thc wholc industly has not lbund a
tcchnical solutlon a court would bc hard put to closc down this onc ccmcnt
plant if duc rc3ard bc givcn to cquitabic principlcs.
On thc othcr hand, to grant thc in,unCt10n unlcss defendant pays
もsuch pcrmancnt damagcs as lnay bc nxcd by thc court sccms to do
plainti虹
justicc bcぃvccn thc contcnding partics.All of thc attributions Of cconorllic
7c
ア
loss to thc propcrtics on H/hich plaintitts'complaints arc bascd、
11l ha■
bccn rcdrcsscd.
Thc nuisancc complaincd Of by thcsc plaintitt may ha■
/c othcr publlc or
privatc conscqucnccs, but thcsc particular partics arc thc only oncs who
ア
ha、
c sOught rcmcdics and thc,udgmCnt proposcd胡
11的Itt rcdrcss them.
Thc llrnitatlon of rcllcf grantcd is a llrnitation only wlthin thc four corncrs of
thesc actions and docs not forcclosc publlc hcalth or othcr publlc agcncics
from sccking propcr rclicfin a propcr court.
It sccms rcasonablc to think that thc risk of bcing rcquircd to pay
pcrlnancnt damzlgcs to ln,urCd prOpcHy owncrs by ccmcnt plant owncrs
would itsclf bc a rcasonablc cntctミ ミ spur to rcscarch for improvcd tcch,
niqucs tO rninirnセ
c nuisancc.
*「にspondcnt's invcstinCnt in thc plant is in
CXCCSS()fい45,000,000 Thcrc arc ovcr 300 pco―
plc cmpk"ぐ d thcrc
Ch. 16
623
NUISANCE
10月22日分(week4)
Thc powcr ofthc court to condition on cquitablc grounds the continu‐
ancc oF an fづ unCtiOn on thc p2/mcnt oF pcH112ncnt dttagcs sccmS un,
doubtcd.* * *
本 * ネ
Thus it sccrns最 上r to both sides to grant pe....ancnt damagcs to plaintitts
which will tcrlninatc this privatc liti3atlon.Thc thcory of damage is the
“
scrvitudc on land" of plaintitts imposcd by dcfcndant's nuisancc。
6,261,262,267,66S,Ct.1062,90L`Ed`
United Statcs v.Causby,328U.S,2う
(SCC
ThC,udgmcnt,by allowance of pe....ancnt damages imposing a scrvl‐
mdc on land, which is thc basis of thc actlons, would prccludc 良
rccovcry by plaint週偽or thcir ttrantees.
】
turc
1206,、 ア
hcre thc te...■“scrvittdc"addrcsscd to thc land was uscd byJuStiCC
Douglas rclatin3 tO thC cIFcct of airplanc noisc on propeHtt ncar an airport.)
This should bc placcd bcyond dcbatc by a provlslon of thc,udgmcnt
that thc pttmcnt by dcfcndant and thc acccptancc by plaintitt of pcrmanent
damages found by thc court shall bc in compcnsation for a servittdc on thc
land.
Aithou3h thC Trial Tc....haS Ibund pe....ancnt damagcs as a possiblc
basis of sctticmcnt of thc litigation, on rcrllisslon thc coui should be
cntirely frec to rccxaminc this sub,cct.It may again ind thc pcrmancnt
damagc alrcady found,or makc ncw indings.
Thc ordcrs should bc rcvcrscd,without costs,and the cascs rclnittcd to
Suprcmc Court,Albany County to 3rant an in,unCtiOn which shall be vacatcd
upon paymcnt by defcndant ofsuch amounts of pcnnanent damage to thc
rcspcctNc plaintitt as shan for this purposc bc dctc..1lincd by thc court.
JASEN,JudgC(diSSentin9.
I agrce with thc maiority that a rcvcrsal ls rcquircd herc,but l do not
ェ
ェ
.anent
subscribe to thc ncwly cnunciatcd doctHnc of asscssinent Of peェ
damagcs, ln llcu of an in,unct10n,whcrc substzRntial propcHy rights havc
bccn impaircd by thc crcation of a nuisancc.
It has iong becn the rulc in this Statc,as thc m句
oHty acknowlcdBcs,
that a nuisancc which rcsuits in substantial continuin3 damagc to ncighbors
must be enioined.御
hな cn V・ Unlon Bag&Papcr Co。
,208N.Y.1,101N.E.
805,Campbcll v.Scaman,63N.Y。
568,sec,also,Kennedy v.Moog Scrvo‐
E.2d356.)To nOW Changc
controls,21N.Y.2d966,290N.Y.S.2d193,237Nも
thc rulc to pc.1.1lt thC ccmcnt company to continuc polluting the air
..ancnt damagcs is, ln my opinlon,
indcinitcly upon the payment of pc.ェ
compounding thc magnitude of a very serious probicnl ln our Statc and
Nation today,
In rccognitlon of this problcn■
,thc Lcgisiattrc of this Statc has cnactcd
thc Ar Pollution Control Act(PubllC Hcalth Law, Consol.Laws, c.45,
ss 1264 to 1299-■
9 declaring that it is thc Statc pollcy to rcquirc thc usc of
all α
既意lablc and rcasonabic mcthods to prcvcnt and control air pollutlon
624
LIABILIIY MTHOuT FAULT
Pt. 2
10月22日分(week4)
アs 12651)。
(PubllC HCalth La、
Thc harrlnュi nattrc and widcsprcad occurrcncc of air p01lutlon havc
ァdOCumcntcd.Congrcssional hcarings havc rcvcalcd that air
bccn cxtcnsivc、
pollutlon causcs substantial propcHtt damagc,as wcll as bcing a contributing
factor to a rising incidcncc Of lung canccr, cmphyscma, bronchitis and
asthma.
Thc spccinc problcm faccd hcrc is known as particulatc contalnination
bccause of thc finc dust particics cmanating from dcfcndant's ccmcnt plant.
Thc particular typc of nuisancc is not ncw,having appcarcd in many cascs
for at lcast thc past 60 ycars.(ScC Hulbcrt v california Po■
land Cemcnt cO,
161 Cal. 239, 118 P 928 [1911].)It iS intcrcsting to notc that ccmcnt
production has rcccntly bccn idcntincd as a si3nificant sourcc of particulatc
contalnination in thc Hudson Vallcy.3 This ttpc of pollutlon,whcrcin vcry
sIIlall particlcs cscapc and stay in thc atl■osphcrc,has bccn dcnoIIlinated as
thC ttpc of alr ponutlon which produccs thc grcatcst hazard to human
hcalth.4 vc ha■ 7c thus a nuisancc H/hich not Only is damaging to thc
plainti偽 ,5 but also is dccidcdly harinful to thc gcncral publlc.
I scc gravc dangcrs in ovcrrulin3 0ur longicstabttshcd ttlc of granting
an in,unctlon whcrc a nuisancc rcsults in substantial continuing damagc.In
pcrlnitting thc iniunct10n to bccomc inOpcrativc upon thc paymcnt of
pcrmancnt damagcs,thc FIla,Ority is,in cffcct,1lccnsing a continuing wrong.
It is thc samc as saying to thc ccmcnt
harln tO your ncighbors so long as you
such pcmancnt damagcs arc asscsscd and
thc wrOn3 WOuld bc clirninatcd,thcrcby
without abatcmcnt.
company,you may continuc to do
pay a fcc fOr it.Furthcrmorc,oncc
paid, thc inccnt市
c to allcviatc
continuing air pollutlon of an arca
It is truc that somc courts havc sanctloncd thc rcmcdy hcrc prOposcd
by thc ma,ority in a numbcr of cascs,6 but nOnc of thc authOritics rcllcd
upon by thc ma,Ority arc analo30us to thc situatlon bcforc us.In thosc
cascs, thc courts, in dcnying an in,unction and awarding moncy damagcs,
grounded thcir dccision on a shOwin3 that thc usc tO which thc propcrty
was intcndcd to bc put Hね
s prilnarlly for thc publlc bcncnt.Hcrc,on thc
othcr hand, it is cicarly cstabllshcd that thc ccmcnt company is crcating a
continuing air pollutlon nuisancc prilnarlly for its Own pri■ 7atc intcrcst with
no publlc bcncfit.
This kind of invcrsc condcmnatlon(Fcrguson v Village of Hamburg,
272 NoY. 234, う N.E2d 801)may nOt bc invokcd by a privatc pcrson or
1, Scc, also, A,r Quali呼
U S Stat 485(1967)
血 t Of 1967, 81
ofthis nuisancc Thc trial cOurt ttund thctr total
pcrmancnt damagcs to cqual船
185,000
3. Ncw York Statc Burcau of Air Pollution
Control Scwiccs,Alr Pollution Capital District,
1968,atp 8
6. scc unitcd Statcs v Causby,328 U S 256,
66 s ct lo62, 90 L Ed 1206i Kcntuckytthio
Gas Co v Bowlln3,264【
γ470,477,9,S W 2d
4. J Ludwi3)A,rP()1lution Control Tcchnolo‐
1,Nolthcrn indtana Public ScPFicc CO v WJ &
v and
gy: Rcscarch and Dcvclopmcnt on Nc、
M S Vcscy,210 1nd 338,200 N E 620,Citt Of
IInprovcd Systcms, 33 Law & Contcmp Prob,
Alllarlllo v Warc, 1201｀ cx 456, 40 S w 2d う
217,219(1968)
Pappcnhclln v MctrOpOlttan El Ry (,0, 128
5. Thcrc arc scvcn plaintitts hcrc who havc NY 436, 28 NE 518, Fcrguson v villagc of
bccn substantially damagcd by thc maintcnancc
Hambur8,272 N Y 234,5 N E 2d 801
71
Ch. 16
625
NUISANCE
10月22日分(week4)
corporation for prittatc gain or ad、 antagc. Invcrsc condcmnation should
ody bc pc.111lttcd whcn thc publlc is primarily scrvcd in thc tattn3 0r
impairFIICnt of propcly.Thc promotion of the intcrcsts of thc pollutin3
ccmcnt company has,in iny opinlon,no publlc usc or bcncFlt.
...lssible to ll■
Nor is it constimtionaJy peェ
posc scrvitudc on 12nd,
wtthout conscnt ofthc owncr,by payment Of perinancnt damagcs whcrc thc
continuing impatェ ...cnt Ofthc land is fbr a privatc usc,(SCC Ftth Avc,Coach
Lines v.City of Ncw York, 1l N.Y.2d342,347,229N.Y.S.2d400,403, 183
N.E.2d684,686,Walkcr v.City of Hutchinson,352U.S.112,77S.Ct.200,1
L.Ed.2d178.)ThiS iS Inade clcar by thc Statc Constitutlon(art.I,S 7)subd.
あ″c
[p]dⅥ tC propcHy shall not bc takcn for p″
[a])WhiCh providcs that“
″s夕without,ust cOmpcnsation"(cmphasis addco).It iS,Of coursc,s13nin,
cant that the scction makcs no mcntion of taking for a p″
υ″″
c usc,
In sum, thcn,by constimtlonal mandatc as wett as tt judictt pro―
nounccmcnt, the peHェ .ancnt impaiェム
..cnt of prlvatc propcHy for privatc
purposcs is not authorizcd in thc abscncc of clcarly demOnstrated public
bcncnt and usc.
I would cn,oin thc dcfcndant ccmcnt company froFn COntinuing the
dischzlrgc of dust particies upon its nc18hbOrs'prOpcrtics unlcss,within 18
months,thc ccmcnt company abated this nuisancc.7
1t is not my intcntion to causc thc rcmovz1l ofthc ccmcnt plant from thc
Albany arca, but to rccognttc thc urgcncy of thc problcln stclnlning from
this stationary sourcc of air pollution,and to allow the company a spcciflcd
period oftimc to dcvclop a lncans to alleviatc this nuisancc.
I arn aware that thc trial court found that thc IIlost modcrn dust contr01
dc宙 ccs avallablc havc been installed in dcfcndant's plzBnt,but,I sublnit,this
夕r and IIlorc cBttctivc dust control devices couid not
docs not IIlean thatう o″″
bc dcveloped within thc tirnc allowcd to abate thc pollutlon.
Moreovcr,I bclicvc it is incumbcnt upon thc dcFendant to develop such
dcvices, since thc ccmcnt company, at thc timc the plant coIIIIncnccd
productlon(1962),was WCll awarc of thc plaintirs'prcscncc in thc zlrca,as
wcll as thc probablc consequcnces ofits contcmplatcd opcration.Yct,it still
chosc to bulld and opcttltc thc plant at this sitc.
g conccrll for cican air,hittly devclopcd
In a day whcn thcrc is a 河
3t rn ぃ
industry should not cxpcct acquicsccncc by thc courts,but should,instcad)
plan its opcrations to chrllinatc contarninatlon of our air and damagc to its
ncighbors.
tsion,insofar as thcy dcnicd
Accordingly,the orders ofthc Appcllatc Dl、
thC山 打unction, should bc rcvcscd, and thc actions rcrllittcd to Suprcmc
Court,Albany Countt tO grant an in,unction to takc cffcct 18 1nonths hencc,
unlcss thc nuisancc is abatcd by improved techniqucs prior to said datc.
BREITEL and GIBSON,JJり
taking no part.
7. Thc issuancc of an ittunCtiOn to bccomc
NE l134, an inlunction against thc maintc‐
cfに
ctlvc in the mmre is not an cntirctt ncw nancc of a dam spllling watcr on plaintigs
conccpt For instancc, in Schwarzcnbach v
propcHy was issucd to bccomc cIFcct市
Onconta Lt3ht&POwcr Co,207 NY 671, 100 ycar hcncc
c onc
626
LIABILIIY WITHOUT FAULT
10月22日分(week4)
Pt. 2
出臥DISON v.DUCHOWN SULPHUR,COPPER&IRON CO.,113 Tcnn,
331, 83 S.W.658 (1904).DcFcndants arc svo coppcr lninin3 COmpanics
、ア
hosc proccss for rcducing thcir orc一 一opcn,air“ roasting"―一produccs largc
volumcs of sulfurous smokco Plaintitt arc ncarby farmcrs complainin3 0f
crop and timbcr damagc causcd by thc smOkc, as wcll as houschold
'nuisancc suit
inconvcnicncc,pcrsonal annoyancc,and lll hcalth.Plainti宜
も
sccks an in,unction to prcvcnt continued injury・
Sincc roastin3 1S“ thc only
known mcthod''of orc rcductlon,and intcgral to dcfcndants'opcrations,an
abatcment decrce would compcl dcfendants ``to StOp Opcratlons'' and
“
ア
withdra、 アfrom the statc.''ThCぶ 内
o companics togcthcr cmploy somc 2,500
Ю rkcrsi thetr tax assessment amounts to half thc tax aggrcgatc for thcir
county. On appcal in thc Tcnncsscc Suprcmc Court froln thc grant of
injunctivc rcllcf by thc Court of Chancctt Appcals,み
θ″
拓 for dCfCndants.
“
Whllc therc can bc no doubt that thc facts statcd makc out a casc of
* *A
nuisancc, * 来 *thc remedy in equity is not a mattcr of coursc`来
jud3mcnt for damagcs in this class of cascs is a mattcr of absolutc right,
whcrc injutt is shown.A dccrcc for an in,unCt10n is a IIlattcr of sound icgal
dlscrctlon * * *.'' Equitablc discrctlon must considcr “ all of thc spccial
circurIIstanccs of cach casc* * ネ巾tth a vicw to cnたCt thc cnds of,uStiCC"
T■/o principlcs of cquity compcl dcnial of an iniunct10n hcrc.
-ls a bar to
First, unduc dclay in sccttng an iniunCt10n or“
lachcs''一
cquitablc relici A paHy who has``sicpt on his ri3htS''cannot latcr Obtain a
rcmcdy whosc basis is``thc rcal cquity ofthc casc,''QuOting,thc court said:
Rcllcf by in,unctlon is not controllcd by arbitra■
r Or tCChnicai rulcs,
but thc appllcation for its cxcrcisc is addrcsscd to thc conscicncc and
sound discrction of thc court.* * *[A〕
court Of equitt wlll rlot grant
rcttcf by injunction whcrc thc patt sccking it, bcing cogttant of his
rights,docs not takc thosc stcps which arc opcn to hirll,but lics by and
surfcrs his advcrsa巧 / tO incur cxpcnscs and cntcr into burdcnsomc
cngagcmcnts which would rcndcr thc granting of an in,unction against
the complction ofthc undcrtattng,or thc usc thcrcof whcn complctcd,
a3rcat in,utt tO him.A suitor who by his lachcs has madc it impossiblc
for a court to cn,oin his ad■ /crsatt without innicting grcat in,ury upon
hiln、 ア
11l bc lctt to pursuc his ordinary lcgal rcmcdy.
In thc prcsent casc, scvCral plaintifFs arc barrcd by lachcs bccausc thcy
waitcd tcn ycars bcforc bringing suit, and in thc mcantimc largc cxpcndi‐
turcs wcrc rnadc to improvc thc coppcr cxtractlon lあ cllltics complaincd oi lt
would bc “ incquitablc to grant thc scvcrc remcdy of in,unctiOn"to thcsc
complainants, who rathcr “
should bc lcFt to thcir actions for damagcs.''
H o w c v c r , o t h c r c l a i m s f o r i n ) u n c t i w c r c l l c f w c r c b r o u g h t l i t t l c m oア
or c t h a n 品
ycars altcr in,uriCS bCgan,and thcy arc not barrcd.
Thc sccOnd ground for dcnメ
ng an in,unCtiOn一 appllczlblc tO all corll‐
-ls
dcvciopcd
in
thc
fo1lo覇
Ang cxccrpts from thc court's opinlon:
plainants―
* * *if thc
In Wood on Nuisanccs(3d Ed.)p.1182, it is said: “
injurV On thc onc hand is small and fairly compcnsabic in damagcs,and
Ch. 16
10月22日分(week4)
NUISANCE
627
thc loss to thc othcr paHy would be largc and disastrous,an
unctiOn inチ
wlll bc rcttlsed and thc paHy lclt to his lcgal rcmcdy.''
* * 米 Thc dcfendant's busincss
In Dcmarcst v.Hardham it is said:“
is not only la巾 塩ュ
1,but ncccssary.It is carricd on in a part of thc city of
Ncwark devotcd almost cxCluSively to manufacturing and busincss
* * It Should not, thcrcfore, bc cn,01ncd cxccpt undcr a
purposcs. ネ
stcrn ncccssity,* * 米 [T]he cOurtis bound to comparc conscqucnccs,If
thc Fact of an actionable nuisancc is clcariy cstablished,thcn thc cOurt is
bound to considcr whcthcr a grcaterヤ
リury w11l not bc donc by grantin3
an iniunctlon,御 d thus dcstroying a citizcn's propctt and taking away
from hiln his incans of livcllhood,than Hれ
1l resuit from a rcttsal,and
lca、
tng thc in,urCd paHy to his ordinary lc3al remcdy* * *。 ル34 NJ.Eq.
469(1881).
In Powell v.Bcnticy&Gcmア
ig Furnimre co.GV,Va.)it iS Said:
“* * *tO abatc or rcstrain in casc of nuisancc is not a inatter of strict
right,but of ordcrly and rcasonable discrctlon,according to thc right of
thc Particuttr casc,and hcncc ta court OF equit/]willscrcl拍
rcllci and
scnd thc paコ 呼 to a cOurt of law, whcn damagcs Ю
uld be a fairer
)
p
r
O
m
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
c
o
m
m
o
n
,
u
s
t
i
C
C
,
b
C
c
a
u
s
c
t
o
s
l
l
c
n
c
c
a
usc的
l and costly
年
factory is ottcn a mzlttcr of scrlous momcnt to thc statc and town as
wcll as to thc owncr.''34W.Va.804,12S.E.1085(1891).
米 * *it is not cvcly caSc of
In Cll丘on lron Co.v.Dyc it is said:“
nuisancc or continuing trcspass which a court of cquity will rcstrain by
in,unCtiOn.In dctcrl■ining this qucstlon thc court should weigh thc
in,ury that may accruc to thc onc or thc other pa呼 , and also to thc
publlc,by granting or rcilsing thc in,unCtiOn.* * *Thc utilセation of
thcsc orcs,which must bc washed bcforc using, ncccssitatCs in somc
mcasurc thc placing of sedilncnt whcrc it lnay now into streams* * ネ
and,whilc this invasion of thc dghts of thc iowcr riparian owncr lnay
producc iniury,cntitling hiln to redrcss,thc grcat publlc intcrcsts and
bcncnts to nOw from thc conversion ofthcsc orcs into pig lnctal should
not bc lost si3ht Oi"87 Ala.468,6 So.192(1888).
米 * *
Thc qucstion now to be considcrcd is,what is thc propcr cxcrcisc
of discrctlon, undcr the ttcts appcaring in thc prcscnt casc? * * 求
In ordcr to protcct by in,unctiOn scvcral small tracts of land,
aggrcgating in valuc lcss than 研
1,000,we arc askcd to dcstroy othcr
2,000,000,
and wrcckぃ
vo grcat IIIining and
propcHy worth ncarly 船
manufacmfing enterpriscs, that arc cn3agcd in work of vcry grcat
importancc,not only to thcir owncrs,but to thc state,and to thc wholc
country as wcll,to dcpopulatc a largc town,and dcprivc thousands of
working pcoplc ofthcir homcs and li、
clihood,and scatter thcIIl broad,
cast.Thc rcsult would be practically a connscation of thc propeH7 of
―an zlppropriation
the dcfendants lbr thc bcncFlt of thc complainants■
wlthout compcnsatlon.Thc dcfcndants cannot rcducc thclr orcs in a
manncr dircrcnt froln that thcy are now cmploying, and therc is no
,
628
LIABILITEY W■
10月22日分(week4)
THOUT FAULT
Pt. 2
morc rcmotc placc to which thcy can rcmovc.Thc dccrcc asttd for
would dcpri■ /c thcm of all of thcir rightso Wc apprcciatc thc argumcnt
bascd on thc fact that thc homcs Of thc complainants who llvc on thc
small tracts of land rcfcrrcd to arc not so comfortabic and uscful to
their owl■ crS aS they wcrc bcforc thcy wcrc alfcctcd by thc smokc
complaincd oi and WC arc dccply scnsiblc ofthc truth of thc proposl‐
tion that no man is cntitlcd to any morc rights than anothcr on thc
3round that hc has or owns mOrc propcHy than that othcr.But in a
casc of connicting rights,wllcrc ncithcr pany can cn,oy hiS OWn without
in somc mcasure rcstricting thc llbcdy of thc othcr in thc usc of
▼ccn thc
propcrty,thc la、 アrnust rnattc thc bcst arrangcmcnt it can bcぶ
contcnding pa虹
lcs,現 4ith a宙 cw tO prcscrving to cach onc thc largcst
mcasurc ofllbcrty possibic undcr thc circumstanccs Wc sec no cscapc
from thc concluslon in thc prcscnt casc that thc only propcr dccrcc is
to all叩 thc complainants a rcfercncc for thc asccrtainmcnt of damagcs,
* *.
and that thc iniunCt10n inust bc dcnicd to thcmネ
LIITLE JOSEPH剰
騨虹IY,INC.v.TOWN OF BABYLON,41N.Y.2d738,
Plaintiff sucd to cn,Oin cOnstruc‐
395N.YoS.2d428,363 N E.2d l163(1977)・
/.Thc
tlon and opcttitlon of an asphalt plant in violatlon of local zoning la弔
trial court ttlcd against plainttti but thC Appcllatc Division hcld that thc
plant一 by thcn in i】 1l opcratlol■― ontra./cncd thc zonin8 0rdinancc.How‐
cver, sincc “ a disparity cxistcd bc6vccn plaintitts damagcs and the largcr
cconolnic conscqucnccs of an iniunCtiOn,''thc intcHncdiatc court rcttscd
an ordcr shutting down thc plant,providcd a spcciflcd Flltcr wcrc installcd
ア
to rcducc dust crnission.Follo、
ing Boomcr vo Adantic Ccmcnt Co.,it hcld
/cr
pcrlnancnt
damagcs in llcu of abatcmcnt.On
plaintirf should rcco■
ccrtincatlon to thc Ncw York Court of Appcals, み
θ″
″ for plaintitt Thc
rcrncdy grantcd below“
runs countcr to firinly establishcd law and sound
dcfcndants arc ネ * * in cffcct buying thc
publlc pollcy," sincc undcr it “
ri3ht tO Vlolatc thc law.''β οοttθ″is inapplicablc hcrc bccausc``no zoning
violation,or fbr that rnattcr,thc violatlon of any other statutc,H/as involvcd
''Thc court cxplaincdi
in that casc。
“
Thc law of nuisancc and that of zoning both rclatc to thc usc of
propcrty, but thcy cach protcct a digtrcnt intcrest.So a usc which i11ly
complics、 ア
ith a zoning ordinancc lnay still bc cniOined as a nuisance albcit
`thc plaintiff assumcs a hcavy burdcn of prooi'
“
Nuisancc is bascd upon thc maxiln that `a man shall not usc his
propcrty so as to harrn anothcr.' It traditlonally rcquircd that, altcr a
balancin3 0f risttutllltv considcratlons,thc gravity of thc harm to a plaintir
bc found to outwcigh thc social usc血
】
incss of a dcfcndant's activity.(PrOs,
scr, Law of Torts[4th Cd.1, p.581, scc, also, Rcstatcment, Torts 2d
οο物2ら
[Tent.Draft No.181,s826,pp.3-4)On that basis,it was lo31Cal in β
whcrc thc advcrsc econonllc cffccts of a pc....anCnt in,unCtlOn far out,
wcighed thc loss plaintiffs thcrc wOuld surfcr,t。1llnit thc rcllcf to monctary
damagcs as compcnsation for thc`scrvltudc'which had bccn imposcd upon
thcm.
Ch. 16
10月22日分(week4)
NUISANCE
629
“
Zoning is far inorc cOmprehcnsivc.Its design is,On a planncd basis,to
scrvc as `a vltal tool fOr maintaining a civllizcd fOrm Of cxlstcncc'fOr thc
bcncFlt and wclfarc Of an cntirc cOmmunity(udcll V`Haas,21Nぬ
二2d463,
469, 288 N.YoS.2d 888, 893, 235 N.E.2d 897, 900, scc, 狐
so, cOIninent,
Zoning and thc Law of Nuisance, 29 Ford,L.Rcv. 749, 750L7う
1, Corninent,
Zoning Ordinanccs and Conllnon―
Law Nuisancc,16 Syracusc L.Rev.860).ItS
vith thcsc 80als in Hlind.It rbllows that,whcn
provls10ns lnust bc cnforccd、
a continuing usc IIics in thc ttcc Of a valld zOning rcstrictiOn,it inust,sub,cct
to thc cxistcncc of any appropriatc equitable dcfcnscs,bc cniOinCd uncOndl‐
tionally.
``Conscqucntly,hOwcvcr apprOpriatc thc rcmcdy fash10ncd by thc Ap‐
Pcllatc Division lnight bc in rcsolving a privatc nuisancc case,it is inappro‐
pHatc hcrc.In privatc nuisance, thcrc is frcqucntly a nccd to resolvc a
disputc bcぃ vccn a plaintiIF and a dcfcndant Ovcr connicting though valid
uscs of land. In such a casc, thc remcdial opt10ns dclineated in』
οO物
θ″
providc incans by which cOurts can ad,ust Such cOmpeting uscs wlth a view
towards lnaxirnizing the social valuc of each.
“
On thc othcr hand, whcn it has bccn cstablishcd that a dcfcndant
violatcs a valld zoning ordinancc,thcrc is no nccd fOr,udiCial accoHllnOda‐
tion of thc dcFcndant's usc to that Of the plainttt For a court to dO sO
would bc for it tO usurp thc legisiativc ttnctiOn,SpeciFlcally,in thc casc now
beforc us,if thc dcfcndants can continuc thc unlattful use of thc propcH7
attcr cOmplying with thc rclicf granted on rcmand,the trial court'sjudgmcnt
would havc wOrkcd to rczonc thc land H/ith conditions no占
vithstanding thc
fact that thc powcr tO dO so is rcscrvcd to thc tOwn bOard alonct
``This is not to say that risk_utill呼
COnsidcratlons have nOt entcred into
thc adoptlon of a zoning均 脚ギs rcstriction on usc.It is rathcr that prcsump,
tively thcy havc alrcady bcen H/e13hCd and disposcd Of by thc Le31Siaturc
which cnactcd thcm.''
UNIttD STAttS v.HOOKER CHEMICALS&PLASTICS CORP,
Unitcd Statcs Distict Court,Westcrn Dlstrict of Ncw York,1989
722 F Supp 960
CURTIN,District JudgC.
Pcnding lbr decision is plaintilf statc of New York's lnotlon,pursuant to
Fcd.R.Civ`P,56,for partial surnrnary,udgmCnt as to dcfcndant Occidental
Chcmical Corpo章 ■lon[OCC]'S Iiability in this actiOn undcr thc New York
common law of nuisancc.Spccincaily,the Statc scctt this court's dctc.11lina,
tlon that OCC is llablc as a mattcr of law lbr thc crcatlon of a publlc
nuisancc at thc Lovc Cantt landfill sitc,as wcll as for thc cOsts incurrcd by
thc Statc in cicaning up the sitc.* * *
* * 求 Inヽ生
ay of 1894,Willlam T`Lovc bcgan cOnstruction of a canal to
conncct thc uppcr and lowcr portlons Of thc Niagara Rivcr as part of a
comprchcnsiwc PrOチ
CCt tO dCVclop and utllizc thc arca's watcr power potcn‐
tial.Thc cOnstluctiOn was subscquently abandoncd whcn industdal finan‐
cics of Lovc's COmpany←
hc Niagara Power and Dcvclopmcnt COrporatlon