## Facts

- The Griffins owned and lived in a residence on Oporto Drive in Los Angeles, a restricted residential area; the Northridges owned the adjacent lot.
- After the Griffins moved in, the Northridges engaged in a continuing course of hostile conduct directed at the Griffins.
- Defendants or their agents trespassed on plaintiffs’ property, damaged plants, and caused paint to be cast onto plaintiffs’ home.
- Defendants moved a garbage can to a location near the property line under plaintiffs’ dining room window.
- Defendants installed a line along the boundary with attached tin can tops that created persistent clanging noise, including at night.
- Mrs. Northridge repeatedly shouted insulting and abusive remarks at Mrs. Griffin from near the boundary and confronted plaintiffs’ guests about parking.
- Defendants erected an unsightly temporary barrier on their own land near the property line that obstructed plaintiffs’ sun, light, ventilation, and view.
- Plaintiffs sold the property before trial and pursued damages (not injunctive relief) for the period when they owned and occupied the home.
- The trial court found a nuisance and awarded plaintiffs $1,000 in damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a sustained pattern of malicious harassment and a spiteful barrier on adjacent property constituted a private nuisance by substantially and unreasonably interfering with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land.
2. Whether plaintiffs could recover damages for a past nuisance after selling the property, and whether the evidence supported the amount awarded.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that defendants created and maintained a nuisance.
- The $1,000 damages award was supported by evidence of substantial discomfort, annoyance, and impairment of plaintiffs’ property interest during their ownership and occupancy.
- Plaintiffs’ sale of the property before trial did not bar recovery for injuries suffered while they owned the home.

## Legal Principles

- A private nuisance exists where conduct results in a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land.
- Conduct that might be lawful if done for legitimate purposes (e.g., placing objects, constructing a fence) can be a nuisance when carried out maliciously or primarily to annoy or injure a neighbor.
- Nuisance liability may rest on the cumulative effect of a continuous course of conduct, not merely on any single isolated act.
- A plaintiff may recover damages for a past nuisance occurring during the plaintiff’s ownership and occupancy even if the plaintiff sells the property before judgment, provided injury and resulting harm are proven.

## Conclusion

The court held that defendants’ ongoing, malicious neighbor harassment and the erection of an obstructive, unsightly barrier constituted a private nuisance, and it affirmed an award of damages for the interference and impairment suffered during the period plaintiffs owned and lived in the property despite their later sale of the home.


Griffin v. Northridge, 153 P.2d 800 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)