12. In a suit by the neighbor against the homeowner, will the neighbor prevail?

A nuisance is a tortious harm which interferes with either private property rights or public rights. A private nuisance is a substantial, unreasonable interference with another private individual's use or enjoyment of property that is offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to an average person in the community. To prevail on a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the nuisance is an unreasonable interference, by showing that the injury outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct. Where the nuisance cannot be removed without undue burden, and the nuisance has utility, damages for the reduction in property value of the affected plaintiff may be ordered.

A is correct. The neighbor would prevail because the homeowner installed the light solely to annoy the neighbor. The spotlight would qualify as a private nuisance, as severely detracting from the neighbor's view of the lake would constitute a substantial interference with the neighbor's use and enjoyment of his property. Moreover, the injury to the neighbor clearly outweighs the light's utility to the homeowner, because based on the facts, the light has no utility other than annoying the neighbor. Further, because the light had no utility and could be removed without undue burden, a court would likely consider damages insufficient, and instead, grant the neighbor injunctive relief by ordering the light removed entirely.

B is incorrect. Although a diminution in property values resulting from the homeowner's light would be a basis for the neighbor prevailing, it would not be the only basis for recovery. The light is clearly a private nuisance, and by showing that it was an unreasonable inference, including the diminution in property values, the neighbor could prevail. However, property value would not be the only or even primary basis for the neighbor's claim, as the facts indicate that the light severely detracted from the neighbor's view of the lake and was only erected out of spite. To this end, instead of only compensating the neighbor for the loss in property value after weighing the nuisance caused by the light against its utility, a court would more likely authorize injunctive relief and order that the light be removed.

C is incorrect. The neighbor would not be barred from recovery on the basis that his view of the lake was not always obstructed. A private nuisance does not have to be continuous to substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property. The facts here indicate that the light severely detracted from the neighbor's view of the lake, regardless of the fact that it was not always operational. Thus, the fact that the light did not block the neighbor's view during the day would not allow the homeowner to avoid liability for the nuisance.

D is incorrect. The fact that the spotlight provided added security to the homeowner's property would not prevent the neighbor from prevailing. The homeowner could cite the light's added safety as a benefit, which the court would consider as a factor in the utility balancing test when considering whether damages or injunctive relief would be the proper remedy. In this case, the weight of the facts clearly indicates that the spotlight was a nuisance. It severely detracted from the neighbor's view of the lake and served minimal utility to the homeowner. Therefore, a court would most likely authorize injunctive relief and order the light removed or at least moved.