 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
|
State v. H. Samuels Company, Inc., 211 N.W.2d 417 |
Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
1973 |
|
Chapter |
15 |
Title |
Nuisance |
|
Page |
620 |
Topic |
Public Nuisance |
|
Quick Notes |
Despite a salvage yards length of existence and efforts to reduce noise, there can still be a nuisance. It is not the number of repeated acts; it is the extent and the nature of the act. |
||
|
Book Name |
Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises. Weaver, Third Edition. ISBN: 978-1-4224-7220-0. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether legitimacy of the business and the length of existence are controlling factors in determining public nuisance? No, not controlling facts, but help determine if operation should enjoin the nuisance. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Favor for the Defendant - An injunction to enjoin a public nuisance was a drastic remedy. |
|
Supreme |
o Reversed - Judgment to enjoin the operations of the defendants from 5PM to 7AM |
|
Facts |
Rules |
Reason |
|
o Pl - State o Df - Samuels Company What happened? o Since the early 1900s, the Samuels Company has operated a salvage business. o 1948 it was expanded to salvaging metals from automobiles. o 1966 Area was zoned to heavy industrial. o Adjacent areas include: Residential and Commercial. Operations o Cranes pick up metal from railroad car and drop the metal on the conveyor belt. Metal is again dropped from the conveyor belt, and then hammered. State Contends o Samuels has repeated violated the ordinary and will continue to do so to the injury of the public. Home Owner Testimony o Loss of sleep, domestic discord, suspension of home remodeling, moving expenses, rattling of windows, loss of outdoor hobbies, loss of use of porches and yards for relaxation, rattling of pictures, furniture, beds and dishes. Expert Testimony o At various times the sounds caused by the operation exceeded the maximum permissible decibel levels and sound frequencies established by the city ordinance of Portage. o Vibrations emanating from the salvage yard exceeded permissible displacement values prescribed by the ordinance for areas zoned heavy industrial. o Most complaints came from the same person. (Chief of Police). |
Trial Courts Ruling o An injunction to enjoin a public nuisance was a drastic remedy, that the city of Portage had never brought an action for the violation of the ordinance against the defendant and "the defendant had taken considerable steps to improve the situation" and was operating a legitimate business where it had been carried on for many years.
Supreme Courts Response o The T.Cts presumption about noise coming from other sources also contributed to the test preformed was contrary to testimony and evidence. o The fact the defendant has made some efforts to cut down the amount of noise does not go to the question of the existence of a nuisance. o A defendant may use all the means possible in the operation of a legitimate business and yet that operation can cause damage and constitute a nuisance. o Neither the legitimacy of the business nor the length of time it has been in existence is controlling in determining whether a public nuisance exists. o These factors are relevant to the question of whether the court should exercise its discretion to enjoin the nuisance.
Equity Notes o Equity grants relief, not because the acts are in violation of the statute, but because they constitute a nuisance.
Repeated Violations VS. Public Nuisance o This doctrine justifies the issuance of an injunction not to enforce the criminal statute but to enjoin illegal conduct which, because of its repetition, constitutes a nuisance. (When it becomes a nuisance, then it can be followed by a statute).
Requirements to enjoin a nuisance o Depends upon the (1) amount of damages caused thereby and upon the application of the doctrine of the balancing of equities or comparative injury in which the (2) relative harm which would be alleviated by the granting of the injunction is considered in (3) balance with the harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted.
Extent of Act VS. Repeated Violations o The court found that the extent and the nature of the acts and the resulting damage were most important, not the number of witnesses, and that the repeated violations of the ordinance constituted a public nuisance as a matter of law
Holding (Permanent Injunction) o The injunction can only enjoin operations which constitute violations of the ordinance. o Judgment to enjoin the operations of the defendants from 5PM to 7AM. o Reversed |
|
|
Class Notes |
|
What part of heavy industrial that you dont understand? o That does not mean you cannot be a nuisance.
If one person complains, then may be the person can be overly sensitive.
The city never change the Df for exceedint the maximum permissible noise.
Supreme Courts Response o The T.Cts presumption about noise coming from other sources also contributed to the test preformed was contrary to testimony and evidence. o The fact the defendant has made some efforts to cut down the amount of noise does not go to the question of the existence of a nuisance. o A defendant may use all the means possible in the operation of a legitimate business and yet that operation can cause damage and constitute a nuisance. o Neither the legitimacy of the business nor the length of time it has been in existence is controlling in determining whether a public nuisance exists. o These factors are relevant to the question of whether the court should exercise its discretion to enjoin the nuisance.
Requirements to enjoin a nuisance o Depends upon the (1) amount of damages caused thereby and upon the application of the doctrine of the balancing of equities or comparative injury in which the (2) relative harm which would be alleviated by the granting of the injunction is considered in (3) balance with the harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted.
Holding (Permanent Injunction) o The injunction can only enjoin operations which constitute violations of the ordinance. o Judgment to enjoin the operations of the defendants from 5PM to 7AM.
Whats an experimental injunction? o A time limit to fix what is going on, and it you dont get it fixed, then there is a permanent injunction.
Conditional Injunction. o Any kind of condition. o Cement case. o Feedlot case. The Pl has to pay
Permanent Injunction o Show irreparable harm and money damage will not work. o Salvage yard case o Music case.
Preliminary Injunction o Have to show that you have a good case. o Feedlot case shut down during the case.
Repeated Violations VS. Public Nuisance o This doctrine justifies the issuance of an injunction not to enforce the criminal statute but to enjoin illegal conduct which, because of its repetition, constitutes a nuisance. (When it becomes a nuisance, then it can be followed by a statute).
|