LAW 321 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Independent Contractor, Contributory Negligence, Handrail
5 Mar 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Class 2 fact scenario 1 (execotel hotel corp. v. e. b. The challenge is to strike a balance between conflicting claims of landowners. As any physical damage to the hotel was miniscule, the appropriate test involved balancing the plaintiff"s interest in operating a hotel against the defendant"s interest in conducting a pulp and paper operation across the street. Although the dust did not cause a loss of hotel revenue, it was a substantial and serious invasion of the plaintiff"s interest in the land. That interference was of such gravity and severity to go beyond mere inconvenience, was unreasonable, and constituted actionable nuisance. An injunction was issued restraining the unfettered use of the flinger under certain conditions. Because of the accumulation of dust on the roof and the danger of its plugging the drains, the plaintiff was awarded ,396 for roof and drain modification. Class 2 fact scenario 2 (murphy v. little memphis cabaret inc. , 1998 (on ca))
