Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Other Torts
3. In the plaintiffs' nuisance action for damages against the defendants, the plaintiffs should
The plaintiffs, a retired couple, had lived in their home in a residential neighborhood for 20 years when the defendants, a family of six, moved into the house next door and built a swimming pool in the back yard. The family's four young children frequently played in the pool after school. They often were joined by other neighborhood children. The plaintiffs were in the habit of reading and listening to classical music in the afternoons. Sometimes they took naps. The boisterous sounds of the children playing in the pool disturbed the plaintiffs' customary enjoyment of quiet afternoons.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
C is correct. The couple should not prevail, because the noise did not constitute a substantial and unreasonable disturbance to persons of normal sensibilities. Although the children clearly interfered with the couple's use and enjoyment of their property, based on the facts as presented, the interference does not appear to have been one which would be considered substantial or unreasonable to the average person. Consequently, were a court to balance the interests of the parties, it's unlikely it would consider the severity of the injury to the couple to outweigh the utility of the young family's own right to enjoy their property.
A is incorrect. The couple will not prevail on the basis that the children's noise constituted a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of their home. To prevail on a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must show an interference which would be considered unreasonable and substantial by a reasonable person. Here, even if the couple considered the children's noise to be a substantial interference, it was not an objectively substantial or unreasonable interference. Thus, the couple should not prevail.
B is incorrect. The couple would not prevail on the basis that their interest in quiet enjoyment took precedence over the interests of the young family and their children. As a general rule, no party's interests are assumed to automatically trump those of another. Instead, courts balance the relative interests of the parties. Further, based on the facts as presented, the children's interference on the couple's use and enjoyment does not appear to be either objectively substantial or unreasonable. To this end, the balancing test would likely weigh in favor of the children.
D is incorrect. Although the couple likely will not prevail, the basis for their lack of recovery will not be because the children's interest in healthy play has priority over the couple's interest in peace and quiet. As a general rule, no party's interests are assumed to automatically trump those of another. Instead, courts balance the relative interests of the parties. To this end, although a court would likely conclude that the children's interest in healthy play outweighed the couple's interest in peace and quiet, given that the children's interference was not objectively substantial or unreasonable. A court will not find that the children's interest inherently had greater priority than those of the couple.