1
Connor Shore
October 1, 2012
Economics 495
Judge’s Opinion
Pram (P) v. Martini (D)
Minnesota (1982)
In the case, the plaintiff, Pram, has brought charges against the defendant, Martini in
regards to the construction of the defendant’s home along the lot line which will impose
costs and damages to the plaintiff’s solar power system. The plaintiff was the first to
purchase and develop property in the residential subdivision and invested in rooftop solar
panels in hopes of gaining a return on their investment in the form of lower energy bills in
the future. After learning about the construction plans of Martini regarding the
development of his property, Pram informed Martini that the current location, grade, and
height of his residence would result in damages in the form of elevated power bills, along
with decreased functionality of his solar panels. Martini, assuming he had the right to
construct his home in any way which he pleased within his lot, decided to commence with
the construction. The plaintiff has requested that the court rule in favor of a, “temporary
injunction to restrain and enjoin construction by the defendant pending adjustment of
grade and distance of 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."
As stated above, the main question to be resolved in this case is whether property
owners are entitled to the unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power. However, before
addressing this question directly, it is important to evaluate the “Blackstonian” bundle of
land rights. To be brief, these rights state that an owner of an allotment of land has,
“ownership…of a territory demarcated horizontally by boundaries drawn up the land, and
extending…upward to the heavens…with absolute privileges to use and abuse the land.”
Both the plaintiff and defendant reference previous court rulings in which the extensions of
2
Connor Shore
October 1, 2012
Economics 495
land boundaries go above and below the property lines on the land. However, in regards to
sunlight, it important to recognize that the sun cannot be claimed to be within the property
limits of a single lot. The claim that the sun itself, and therefore the light that it emits, can
be included in the “Blackstonian” bundle of land rights is a null point and holds minimal
relevance in this case. Both parties used the precedent set by previous judicial rulings as
testimony to further support their cases’. The case of Edwards et al c. Sims, Judge (1929)
was ruled in favor of the plaintiff and asserted the fact [to whomever the soil belongs, he
owns also to the sky and to the depths.] The court ruled in such a way that enforced the
“Blackstonian” bundle of rights and affirmed that the owner of the soil does in fact own the
sky above their land as well. However, this ruling seems to have immaterial application to
the case at hand. As previously mentioned, the sun does not lie in the sky within the
boundaries of a sole individual’s property, and the right to the light emitted by the sun
must be evaluated from an alternative perspective.
The case of Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc (1959)
addresses the core issue of the case at hand by determining whether property owners have
the right to unrestricted use of the sun. To set the stage, the court found that the doctrine
of “ancient lights” in English Law to not be upheld in the United States. In the judicial ruling
it is stated that, “There being, then, no legal right to the free flow of light… from adjoining
land, it is universally held that where a structure serves a useful and beneficial purpose, it
does not give rise to a cause of action, either for damages or for an injunction the maxim
sice utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (use your own as so not to injure another), even though
it causes injury to another by cutting off the light.” The precedent set by this ruling makes
it clear that there exists no right that ensures access to free flowing light across adjacent
Connor Shore
October 1, 2012
Economics 495
properties. The question then arises as to whether or not the business aspect of the
3
Fountainebleau case and their intention of profit maximizing significantly alters the
implication of the court’s ruling. I feel that it is unfair to distinguish between businesses
and private property with regards to the free flow of light. The owner’s of the
Fountainbleau hotel have the intention of profit maximizing as to increase the utility of
themselves and minority shareholders of the company. Martini, for whatever reason it may
be, has chosen to construct his house in the specified location within his property lot in
order to maximize his utility. Whether his preference is justified by obtaining better view
from the master bedroom, a specific of his backyard, or due to mere superstition, it remains
his right to construct his home in whatever location he prefers in order to maximize his
utility. However, it is noted that an individual cannot use his or her own property in order
to damage, or to the detriment of another.
In Edwards v. Sims the court ruled that limits existed to the unrestricted use of an
owner’s property. The ruling states that one cannot use property “to the detriment or
interference with a neighbor and burdens which it must bear in common with property of a
like kind.” There is no question that in the present case the action by the defendant will be
detrimental to the well being of the plaintiff and the effectiveness of his solar panels in
lower energy costs. However, there are many cases in which the actions of property
owners can be detrimental to adjacent properties that don’t violate any property rights.
For example, in an upscale neighborhood there exists one homeowner who completely
disregards the cleanliness and aesthetic appearance of their home, it will negatively impact
the prices of homes within close proximity. While this neighbor has done nothing to violate
any of his neighbor’s property rights, he is still using his property to impose damages on
4
Connor Shore
October 1, 2012
Economics 495
others. I view this case in a similar fashion. As previously stated, there exists no right to
unobstructed sunlight across adjacent properties. Although the defendant’s property will
impose costs on his neighbor, he is not violating any of the plaintiff’s property rights.
Another issue brought before the court is the precedent this ruling will have on
future cases regarding solar panels, and their owner’s right to solar energy once the solar
panels have been installed. From an environmental standpoint it would be deemed
efficient to encourage the installation and investment in renewable energy sources to
decrease the consumption of fossil fuels, therefore reducing air pollutants and benefiting
public well being. It is true that if these investments are not protected, it would discourage
potential consumers from acquiring solar panels in the future. On the other hand, it is
important to take note of the precedent that would be set if the court were to rule that
there exists an exclusive right to sunlight in the presence of solar panels. This would
create an additional incentive for the installation of solar panels, which is to protect one’s
property from shading caused by surrounding structures. Some would argue this would
actually be beneficial as solar panels provide a positive externality to the public in the form
of cleaner air, which may be true. However, the role of the court is to interpret property
rights as is, and not to steer the market of alternative energy sources in such a way that
would produce the most public benefit.
The plaintiff references the ruling in the case of Estancias Dallas Corporation v. T.R.
Schultz (1973) as support for an injunction on the construction of the defendant’s property.
The judicial ruling in the case favored the plaintiffs for the reason that their home was
purchased in a quiet neighborhood with the expectation that they would be able to relax
outdoors and not be constantly burdened by a noisy air conditioning unit. The new
5
Connor Shore
October 1, 2012
Economics 495
apartment complex, and the accompanying air conditioning unit, was determined to lower
the value of the plaintiff’s home while negatively impacting their well being. As a result, an
injunction was granted. However, it is not foreseeable that an apartment complex was
going to be built so close to their home with a loud air conditioning unit, and therefore it
violated their expectations of the value of their property. The plaintiff in the current case
claims their expectations of using the solar power have been violated. Pram, having been
the first homeowner in the residential subdivision had constructive knowledge that other
houses would eventually be built in adjacent lots, some of which might cast shadows. The
plaintiff could have been more prepared for this by either purchasing the southern most
lot, or building his home in the northern most part of his lot in order to avoid the casting of
shadows from the south on the solar panels. With this constructive knowledge, it is the
responsibility of the plaintiff to take into considerations the benefits of the solar panels
while being aware of the potential costs.
Lastly, in regards to the grade of the defendant’s property, the Architectural Control
Committee is the governing body that must make the decision. After becoming aware of
the grade adjustment, they will act accordingly to zoning regulations. The results of the
Committee reevaluating the home may range from, an order to lower the grade, a fine, or
approval of the new grade. However, it is not the court’s duty to rule on such an issue with
limited knowledge of zoning restrictions and regulations in this specific residential
subdivision.
In the court’s opinion the defendant has not acted in such a way that encroaches on
the property rights of the plaintiff. The injunction to stop construction is denied.
Connor Shore
October 1, 2012
Economics 495
6