Other torts - Claims based on nuisance, and defenses

Learning Outcomes

This article explains nuisance-based tort liability, including:

• Identifying the elements of private and public nuisance and relating each element to typical MBE fact patterns involving land use conflicts.
• Distinguishing nuisance from trespass to land and overlapping negligence or strict-liability claims when the same conduct supports multiple theories of recovery.
• Evaluating whether an interference is “substantial” and “unreasonable” by applying the reasonable-person standard and the utility-versus-harm balancing test.
• Recognizing the different bases of nuisance liability—intentional, negligent, and strict liability—and predicting how they affect available defenses and damages.
• Determining who may sue and who may be sued in private and public nuisance actions, with emphasis on possessory interests and “special harm” standing.
• Applying core defenses, including statutory or legislative authority, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and “coming to the nuisance,” and gauging their exam impact.
• Selecting, comparing, and justifying remedies in nuisance cases, including damages, tailored injunctions, permanent damages, and limited self-help abatement.
• Spotting common MBE traps involving public nuisance standing, hypersensitive plaintiffs, legislative compliance, spite fences, and requests for overly broad injunctions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand nuisance liability and related defenses, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Definition and elements of private and public nuisance.
• Distinction between nuisance and trespass to land.
• What constitutes substantial and unreasonable interference with land use.
• Balancing of utility versus harm in nuisance analysis.
• Defenses to nuisance (e.g., statutory authority, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, coming to the nuisance).
• Remedies for nuisance, including damages, injunctions, and limited self-help abatement.
• Who may sue and who may be sued in nuisance actions.
• Interaction between nuisance and other tort theories (negligence, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities).

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which of the following is NOT an element of private nuisance?
   1. Substantial interference with use or enjoyment of land.
   2. Physical invasion of land.
   3. Unreasonable interference.
   4. Causation.
2. A city enacts a zoning ordinance allowing a factory to operate in a residential area. Residents sue for nuisance due to noise and odors. What is the most likely result?
   1. The ordinance is conclusive evidence that the factory is not a nuisance.
   2. The ordinance is relevant but not conclusive; the factory may still be liable for nuisance.
   3. The ordinance is irrelevant; the factory is strictly liable.
   4. The residents cannot sue because of the ordinance.
3. Which defense is LEAST likely to succeed in a nuisance action?
   1. The plaintiff came to the nuisance.
   2. The defendant acted with statutory authority.
   3. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
   4. The defendant’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

Introduction

Nuisance is a tort that protects a person’s right to use and enjoy land free from certain types of interference. It does not require ownership of the land, only a possessory interest (e.g., tenant, life tenant). Nuisance claims are frequently tested on the MBE, often requiring you to distinguish between private and public nuisance, to separate nuisance from trespass, and to apply the correct defenses and remedies.

At its core, nuisance is about intangible interferences with land use—smoke, noise, vibrations, odors, dust, runoff, glare, etc.—rather than direct physical entry. The same conduct may also support other torts (e.g., negligence, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities), but on the MBE you must be able to identify the nuisance theory and analyze it separately.

Key Term: Private Nuisance
A substantial and unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land by someone with a possessory interest.

Key Term: Public Nuisance
An unreasonable interference with a right held in common by the public, such as public health, safety, peace, comfort, or morals.

Types of Nuisance

There are two main types of nuisance:

• Private nuisance: Interference with a private individual’s use or enjoyment of land.
• Public nuisance: Interference with a right common to the general public, such as blocking a public road or polluting a public waterway.

The same activity can be both a private and a public nuisance (e.g., a factory that emits pollutants harming nearby landowners and also contaminates a public river).

On MBE questions, check:

• Whose interest is affected—an individual possessor’s use and enjoyment, or a public right?
• If public, whether the plaintiff has special harm that allows a private suit.

Basis of Liability in Nuisance

Nuisance is a type of harm, not a standalone theory of fault. Liability can be based on:

• Intentional conduct (most common): The defendant knows with substantial certainty that their conduct will cause the interference, even if they do not desire it.
• Negligence: The nuisance results from the defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care.
• Strict liability: The nuisance arises from abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting) or keeping certain animals.

Key Term: Intentional Nuisance
A nuisance in which the defendant knows or is substantially certain that their conduct will cause an interference with the plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of land.

On the MBE, unless told otherwise, assume the nuisance is intentional if the defendant continues the activity after being informed of the harm. Negligence-based nuisance and strict-liability nuisance are tested less often, but you should recognize them when the facts stress duty, breach, or “abnormally dangerous activity.”

Exam Tip: If a question is framed around blasting, toxic chemicals, or other activities classically subject to strict liability, you can often analyze both strict liability and nuisance. The fundamental basis of liability (intent, negligence, strict liability) does not change what counts as “substantial” and “unreasonable” interference.

Who Can Sue and Who Can Be Sued

A private nuisance protects possessory interests in land.

• Plaintiff: Must have a possessory interest in the affected land (owner, tenant, life tenant, sometimes adverse possessor). Mere users (e.g., guests, customers, licensees using land) usually cannot bring a private nuisance action.
• Defendant: Need not be the landowner—any person whose conduct causes the interference can be liable:
  • The current possessor using the land.
  • A prior creator of a condition (if they retain control).
  • Sometimes a landlord or vendor, if they knew of the condition and failed to address it when under a duty to do so.

For public nuisance, a government entity typically sues to abate the nuisance. A private plaintiff must show special harm (covered below).

Nuisance vs. Trespass

Nuisance is not the same as trespass.

Key Term: Trespass to Land
An intentional physical invasion of another’s real property, regardless of harm.

Key distinctions:

• Trespass protects the plaintiff’s interest in exclusive possession; it requires a physical invasion (person or tangible object) onto the land.
• Nuisance protects the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of land; it often involves intangible invasions like noise, smoke, odors, light, or vibrations.

Some modern courts treat invasions by microscopic particles (e.g., dust, soot) as trespass, but on the MBE, if the interference is intangible and affects comfort or enjoyment, analyze it as nuisance.

Exam Trap: Answer choices may try to push you into trespass when facts emphasize smoke, noise, smell, or vibration with no clear tangible object crossing the property line. Those are classic nuisance facts.

Private Nuisance: Elements

To establish private nuisance, the plaintiff must prove:

• Substantial interference
• Unreasonable interference
• Causation
• Possessory interest in the affected land

Substantial Interference

The interference must be more than trivial, and must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to an ordinary reasonable person in the community. A purely hypersensitive plaintiff or unusually delicate use will generally not suffice.

Key Term: Substantial Interference
An interference that would be considered offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to a reasonable person, not just to someone unusually sensitive or engaged in an unusually delicate use.

Important points for the MBE:

• Nuisance usually involves continuous, frequent, or recurrent interference (e.g., nightly loud music, daily smoke), not a single isolated incident.
• If the plaintiff’s use is abnormally sensitive (rare orchids, a recording studio in a normal neighborhood), interference that would not bother a typical land use is unlikely to be “substantial.”
• Minor annoyances that people in the community commonly endure (occasional traffic noise, infrequent odors) generally do not qualify.

Pure economic loss (e.g., decreased profits because customers are turned off by a nearby use) is not a “nuisance” in itself unless it stems from interference with land use.

Unreasonable Interference

Courts generally apply a balancing test, weighing the gravity of the harm against the utility of the defendant’s conduct.

Key Term: Unreasonable Interference
An interference where the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff outweighs the social utility of the defendant’s conduct, judged by community standards.

Factors relevant to unreasonableness include:

• Character of the neighborhood (industrial vs. residential).
• Social value of the defendant’s activity (hospital vs. junkyard).
• Suitability of the activity to the location.
• Extent, duration, and timing of the harm (nighttime noise is more intrusive).
• Ability to avoid or reduce the harm without undue burden or cost.
• Who was there first and whether the use is longstanding (relevant but not controlling).
• Magnitude of harm versus the burden of avoiding it.

Some jurisdictions treat any intentional, substantial interference as “unreasonable” without balancing, but for MBE purposes, think in terms of gravity vs. utility and “community norms.”

Exam Tip: Do not confuse “unreasonable interference” with “unreasonable conduct.” A defendant might be using their land carefully and beneficially, but if the resulting harm to neighbors is very great (e.g., chemical fumes making neighboring houses uninhabitable), the interference can still be “unreasonable.”

Causation

The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct caused the interference.

• Where multiple parties contribute (several factories emitting smoke), each may be liable if their conduct is a substantial factor in the harm.
• A defendant is not liable for harm caused solely by others.

Causation questions sometimes require you to distinguish between:

• A defendant who merely uses the land after a nuisance has been created by someone else (no liability unless they continue or adopt it), and
• A defendant who continues, maintains, or fails to abate a nuisance once they control the land.

Public Nuisance: Elements

A public nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. Typical fact patterns include:

• Blocking public highways or waterways.
• Pollution of public air or water sources.
• Interference with public health (e.g., keeping diseased animals).
• Interference with public safety or morals (e.g., houses of prostitution).
• Large-scale environmental contamination affecting a wide area.

Only a public authority (state attorney general, local government) may bring an action solely to abate a public nuisance on behalf of the public.

A private plaintiff may sue for damages or equitable relief only if they suffer special harm.

Key Term: Special Harm (Public Nuisance Standing)
Harm suffered by a private plaintiff that is different in kind, not just degree, from that suffered by the general public (e.g., physical injury or property damage unique to the plaintiff).

Examples:

• Everyone is inconvenienced by a blocked bridge, but a business whose only access road is the bridge and which suffers unique economic loss may have special harm.
• Everyone suffers some annoyance from a polluted river, but a commercial fisher whose livelihood depends on that river may have special harm.
• A toxic cloud over a city is a public nuisance; someone physically injured by it has special harm and may sue privately.

Exam Trap: Many MBE choices treat any extra degree of economic harm as “special.” The harm must be different in kind, not just “more serious.” Look for bodily injury, property damage, or unique economic impact linked to a special role (e.g., only access route).

Substantial and Unreasonable Interference: Recap and Application

To recap:

• Substantial: More than slight or fleeting; it must significantly interfere with normal land use. A few stray odors or occasional noise is usually not enough.
• Unreasonable: The court balances the severity and duration of the harm against the value of the defendant’s conduct and the feasibility of alternatives.

When balancing:

• Small harm from a highly valuable and suitably located activity (a hospital in a city center; reasonable airport noise in a zoned area) may not be “unreasonable.”
• Serious harm from a marginally useful or poorly located activity (junkyard in a residential neighborhood, late-night nightclub in quiet suburb) is more likely to be unreasonable.

Key Term: Nuisance Per Se
An activity that is always a nuisance, no matter where or how it is conducted (e.g., a criminal operation).

Key Term: Nuisance in Fact (Per Accidens)
An activity that becomes a nuisance because of circumstances, location, or manner of operation (e.g., an otherwise lawful business conducted in an unreasonable way or place).

On the MBE, you will rarely be asked to label conduct “per se” versus “per accidens,” but fact patterns may describe conduct that is inherently unlawful (often a nuisance per se) versus ordinary conduct that becomes unreasonable in context.

Permanent vs. Continuing Nuisance

Key Term: Permanent Nuisance
A nuisance where the interference is presumed to continue indefinitely and cannot easily be abated; damages are typically awarded once for all past and future harm.

Key Term: Continuing Nuisance
A nuisance that can be stopped or modified; each continuation may give rise to a new cause of action, and the plaintiff may seek damages and/or an injunction.

For exam purposes, this distinction mainly affects:

• The measure of damages:
  • Permanent nuisance: one lump sum reflecting diminution in property value and all future harm.
  • Continuing nuisance: damages up to the time of suit (and sometimes prospectively), with the possibility of later suit if the nuisance continues.
• Limitations periods:
  • Permanent: the statute of limitations typically runs from when the nuisance is created.
  • Continuing: each day’s continuation is a new wrong, often restarting the limitations period.

If a fact pattern stresses a structure that cannot reasonably be removed (e.g., a dam permanently flooding neighboring land), think “permanent” and expect a “permanent damages” analysis.

Defenses to Nuisance

Several defenses may be available to a nuisance claim. These are frequently tested because they are often misunderstood.

Statutory or Legislative Authority

• Compliance with a statute, regulation, or zoning ordinance is relevant but not conclusive on reasonableness.
• A statute may authorize certain activities (e.g., airport operations), but unless it expressly declares them immune from nuisance claims, plaintiffs may still recover if interference is substantial and unreasonable.

Key Term: Legislative Authority Defense
The argument that conduct cannot be a nuisance because it is authorized or regulated by statute or ordinance; it is persuasive but not an absolute bar unless the legislature clearly intended to eliminate nuisance liability.

On the MBE:

• A zoning ordinance allowing industrial use in an area is strong evidence that such use is appropriate for the location.
• But if the specific operation creates extreme noise, fumes, or vibrations beyond what the ordinance contemplated, a nuisance may still be found.

Contributory or Comparative Negligence

• If the nuisance is based on negligence, contributory or comparative negligence rules may apply to reduce or bar damages.
• Where the nuisance is intentional (the most common exam posture), contributory negligence is usually not a defense.
• Comparative fault may sometimes reduce damages where the plaintiff unreasonably fails to mitigate harm (e.g., leaving windows open despite severe fumes), but examine the jurisdictional cues.

Assumption of Risk / Consent

If the plaintiff consented to the interference (expressly or impliedly), or voluntarily encountered a known risk, recovery may be limited or barred.

Examples:

• A tenant who knowingly rents an apartment above a noisy nightclub and expressly accepts the noise may have a weaker claim.
• A landowner who signs a release in exchange for compensation may be barred from later claiming that the same operation is a nuisance, at least for harms contemplated by the release.

Careful: Mere awareness that the nuisance exists (e.g., buying property near an existing factory) is usually analyzed under “coming to the nuisance” rather than full assumption of risk.

Coming to the Nuisance

Key Term: Coming to the Nuisance
A situation where the plaintiff moves near an existing nuisance; generally not a bar to recovery but may affect the remedy.

Key points:

• Not a complete defense: A landowner does not lose the right to be free from unreasonable interference simply by moving into the area.
• It is relevant to equities and remedy: A court may be less willing to grant an injunction (especially where the defendant’s use is longstanding and socially valuable) and instead may award damages.
• Some exam fact patterns involve a plaintiff who moves in solely to sue or who pays a very low price because of the preexisting condition; in those rare scenarios, the court may treat coming to the nuisance more harshly and be reluctant to give strong relief.

Exam Trap: Avoid choices that say “because the plaintiff came to the nuisance, the defendant is not liable.” Liability can still be found; the main impact is on what remedy the court grants.

Conduct of Others

A defendant is liable only for the interference they cause or to which they substantially contribute.

• Where many actors contribute to a nuisance (e.g., multiple factories causing smog), each can be liable if their conduct is a substantial factor.
• A defendant cannot be held liable for harm caused solely by others, but “everyone else does it” is not in itself a defense when the defendant’s own contribution is substantial.

Equitable Defenses in Injunction Cases

In suits seeking injunctions, standard equitable defenses also apply:

• Laches: Unreasonable delay in seeking relief that prejudices the defendant.
• Unclean hands: Plaintiff’s own wrongful conduct relating to the nuisance (e.g., plaintiff also operates a noisy facility) may limit equitable relief.

Courts balance these against the ongoing harm. A plaintiff who waits years to sue may still get damages, but an injunction could be denied.

Remedies for Nuisance

The main remedies are:

• Damages
• Injunction
• Abatement by self-help

Damages

Damages compensate for:

• Diminution in property value (especially for permanent nuisances).
• Loss or impairment of use and enjoyment (e.g., loss of rental value, discomfort, annoyance).
• Costs reasonably incurred to avoid or mitigate harm (e.g., installing air filters, soundproofing).

Courts may award permanent damages (a one-time sum for all future harm) when:

• The nuisance is effectively permanent.
• An injunction would be economically excessive or contrary to public interest (e.g., shutting down a power plant).
• The defendant effectively buys an easement to continue the activity.

Punitive damages are sometimes available if the defendant’s conduct is malicious, willful, or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights (classic example: a spite fence or intentionally directing floodwater onto a neighbor’s land).

Injunction

An injunction orders the defendant to stop, limit, or modify the offending activity. Courts consider:

• Whether damages are inadequate (e.g., harm is ongoing, hard to quantify, or irreparable).
• The balance of hardships: harm to plaintiff vs. burden on defendant and the public.
• Public interest (e.g., shutting down a public utility vs. requiring better mitigation).

Courts can craft tailored injunctions rather than total shutdowns, such as:

• Limiting hours of operation.
• Requiring installation of filters or barriers.
• Restricting certain particularly harmful practices.

Key Term: Balancing of Equities
The process by which a court weighs the relative hardships to the parties and the public when deciding whether and how far to grant injunctive relief.

On the MBE, when you see a useful enterprise that causes harm to a few neighbors, look for answer choices balancing the equities rather than automatically granting an injunction.

Abatement by Self-Help

Key Term: Abatement by Self-Help
A limited privilege allowing a property possessor to enter another’s land and reasonably remove or stop a private nuisance after giving notice and allowing a reasonable opportunity to abate.

Key points:

• Available only for private nuisance, not public nuisance (unless a statute expressly authorizes it or the plaintiff is a public official).
• The plaintiff must first notify the defendant and give a reasonable chance to abate.
• Only reasonable force may be used; excessive damage or entry onto the wrong property can create liability.
• The remedy is narrow. Classic examples include:
  • Trimming overhanging branches back to the property line.
  • Removing encroaching vegetation.
• When self-help would require entering a building or causing significant damage, courts are more likely to require judicial process.

Exam Trap: If a fact pattern has a neighbor destroying an entire tree instead of trimming overhanging limbs, or entering at night without notice, you should flag excessive force and likely liability for trespass or property damage.

Additional Doctrines and Common Fact Patterns

Spite Fences and Similar Malicious Uses

A spite fence is a structure erected solely to annoy a neighbor (e.g., a useless high fence blocking light or view).

• Many courts treat this as a private nuisance when:
  • The structure has little or no useful purpose to its builder, and
  • The primary motive is malice.
• Liability may exist even if the landowner would otherwise have the right to build a fence of that height.

This type of question sometimes tests whether intent (malice) can tip an otherwise borderline interference into “unreasonable.”

No Right to Pure Aesthetic View or Light (Absent Special Circumstances)

Generally, there is no common-law right to:

• A particular view, or
• Unobstructed sunlight,

unless:

• Local statutes or covenants create such rights, or
• The obstruction is a spite fence or otherwise malicious use.

So, a taller building blocking a neighbor’s view usually is not a nuisance unless tied to another substantial harm (e.g., channeling smoke or noise).

Interaction with Other Torts

Nuisance often overlaps with:

• Negligence: Failure to maintain property safely (e.g., leaking tanks causing runoff).
• Strict liability: Abnormally dangerous activities whose effects manifest as nuisance (e.g., blasting vibrations cracking neighboring walls).
• Trespass: Physical encroachments (e.g., flooding, physical deposits of debris).

On the MBE:

• You can often analyze multiple theories.
• Nuisance focuses on the impact on use and enjoyment and the balance of harm vs. utility.
• Trespass focuses on physical entry; damages may be nominal even without substantial harm.

Worked Example 1.1

A homeowner sues a neighboring factory for private nuisance, alleging that smoke and noise from the factory make it impossible to enjoy her backyard. The factory operates under a valid city permit. Is the factory liable for nuisance?

Answer:
The factory may still be liable. The city permit is evidence that the factory’s operation is reasonable, but it is not conclusive. If the interference with the homeowner’s use and enjoyment is substantial (e.g., frequent smoke and loud noise) and unreasonable when balanced against the factory’s utility, the homeowner can recover for private nuisance. The permit supports a legislative authority defense but does not automatically bar the claim.

Worked Example 1.2

A city dumps waste into a river, causing foul odors and making the water unsafe for swimming. A resident sues for public nuisance. Can the resident recover?

Answer:
The resident can recover only if she suffers a special harm different in kind from that suffered by the general public, such as personal illness or unique property damage (e.g., her riverfront dock becomes unusable while most others are unaffected). In the absence of such harm, only a public authority (e.g., the state attorney general) may sue to abate the public nuisance.

Worked Example 1.3

A homeowner operates a small recording studio in his basement. A nearby community center hosts evening basketball games that generate moderate noise consistent with the residential neighborhood. The homeowner sues the center for private nuisance, claiming the noise ruins his recording sessions.

Answer:
The claim is weak. The interference must be substantial to a reasonable person, not just to someone engaged in a highly sensitive use. The homeowner’s recording studio is an unusually sensitive use; noise that is ordinary for the neighborhood and tolerable for typical residential use is unlikely to be a substantial and unreasonable interference. No nuisance is likely to be found.

Worked Example 1.4

A developer builds a residential subdivision next to an existing cattle feedlot that produces strong odors and flies. The developer sells homes and then sues the feedlot for private nuisance on behalf of the buyers. The feedlot raises “coming to the nuisance.”

Answer:
“Coming to the nuisance” is not a complete defense, but it is highly relevant. The feedlot’s prior, longstanding use and the developer’s decision to build homes nearby may lead the court to deny an injunction or to grant only limited relief. However, if the interference is extremely severe and residential use in the area is now predominant, the court may still find a nuisance and award damages (possibly permanent damages) while allowing the feedlot to continue operating.

Worked Example 1.5

A tree on Neighbor’s land has branches that overhang Owner’s property and drop sap and debris onto Owner’s patio. Owner asks Neighbor to trim the branches; Neighbor refuses. After giving written notice and a reasonable time to act, Owner enters Neighbor’s land and cuts the branches back to the property line, causing no unnecessary damage.

Answer:
Owner has used lawful abatement by self-help. The overhanging branches and droppings are a private nuisance. Owner gave notice, allowed Neighbor time to abate, and then entered only as necessary to remove the nuisance using reasonable means. Owner is not liable for trespass or damage.

Worked Example 1.6

A city owns and operates a landfill on public land. Bad odors drift into nearby neighborhoods, and residents complain. One resident sues the city individually for public nuisance, alleging she is “more annoyed” than her neighbors and that her property value has dropped by the same percentage as others in the neighborhood.

Answer:
The resident likely cannot recover on a public nuisance theory. She has not alleged harm different in kind from that suffered by the general public—only a difference in degree (more annoyance, the same percentage drop in property value as neighbors). Without special harm, she lacks standing as a private plaintiff to sue for public nuisance. A public authority would have to bring an action to abate the landfill’s impact.

Exam Warning

The defense of “coming to the nuisance” is often tested. Remember, it is not a complete bar to recovery. The plaintiff’s knowledge of the nuisance may reduce damages or affect the remedy (e.g., no injunction), but it does not automatically defeat the claim. Beware of answer choices treating it as an absolute defense.

Revision Tip

Always distinguish between private and public nuisance on the MBE. Ask:

• Whose right is affected—an individual’s use of their land, or a right common to the public?
• If public nuisance, does the private plaintiff have special harm?
• What is the basis of liability—intent, negligence, or strict liability?

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Private nuisance requires a substantial and unreasonable interference with use or enjoyment of land by someone with a possessory interest.
• Public nuisance affects rights held in common by the public; private plaintiffs must show special harm different in kind from that suffered by the public.
• Nuisance generally concerns intangible interferences (noise, odors, smoke, vibrations); trespass concerns physical invasions.
• Substantial interference is judged by a reasonable person standard; hypersensitivity or unusually delicate uses typically do not create nuisance.
• Unreasonable interference is evaluated by balancing the gravity of the harm against the utility of the defendant’s conduct and its suitability to the locality.
• Nuisance liability can be based on intentional conduct, negligence, or strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
• Compliance with statutes or zoning ordinances is evidence of reasonableness but does not automatically defeat a nuisance claim.
• “Coming to the nuisance” is not a complete defense but can limit equitable remedies, especially injunctions.
• Remedies include damages (sometimes permanent), injunctions (tailored and subject to balancing of hardships), and limited abatement by self-help.
• Public nuisance claims for abatement are usually brought by public authorities; private suits require special harm and often seek damages rather than broad injunctions.
• A defendant is responsible only for harm they cause or substantially contribute to; they cannot be liable solely for others’ conduct.
• Spite fences and malicious uses of land can tip a close case toward finding a nuisance.
• There is generally no right to a particular view or sunlight absent statute or malice; not all annoyances are legally cognizable nuisances.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Private Nuisance
• Public Nuisance
• Substantial Interference
• Unreasonable Interference
• Trespass to Land
• Intentional Nuisance
• Permanent Nuisance
• Continuing Nuisance
• Nuisance Per Se
• Nuisance in Fact (Per Accidens)
• Special Harm (Public Nuisance Standing)
• Legislative Authority Defense
• Balancing of Equities
• Coming to the Nuisance
• Abatement by Self-Help