Nuisance Essay 1

Nuisance Essay

John Anderson produces rattlesnake anti-venom in his single family home located
in a suburban neighborhood. Anderson has approximately 50-75 rattlesnakes in
his home. Anderson produces and sells the rattlesnake anti-venom to medical
supply companies who then sell the snake anti-venom to hospitals to treat victims
of rattlesnake bites.

Two children in the past six months have been bitten by rattlesnakes. Parents
complained to Anderson, but he simply shrugged off each incident, stating that
there was no proof that his rattlesnakes were responsible. There are no other
producers of rattlesnake anti-venom in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is
located in the southwest, where rattlesnakes are common. A town ordinance
prohibits the keeping of wildlife, including rattlesnakes, within the city limits.

First, reports need to be made to the local police department and animal control, so that it

is on record that these kids received bites from rattlesnakes, and that these authorities are aware

that there is suspicion that the rattlesnakes came from Mr. Anderson’s property as he harbors 50

to 75 rattlesnakes in his home. Simply complaining to the Mr. Anderson is not sufficient.

Second, I agree with Mr. Anderson that there is no way to prove that the rattlesnakes that

bit the two children belonged to him. Unless the snakes are captured by animal control and

identified as belonging to Mr. Anderson, there is no evidence linking the snake bites to him. This

is another reason the neighbors need to bring the situation to the attention of the appropriate

authorities.

Third, if a town ordinance exists that prohibits the keeping of wildlife, including

rattlesnakes, within the city limits, then this should be enough to shut down Mr. Anderson’s

business of producing and selling rattlesnake anti-venom and he should be forced to get rid of the

snakes or move to a location that does allow that type of business.

I believe a mixed nuisance exists, because both public and private nuisances exist. A

public nuisance exists, because the keeping of 50 to 75 rattlesnakes is a threat to the health,

safety, comfort, convenience, and welfare of the community (p. 331). A private nuisance exists,
 Nuisance Essay 2

because the rattlesnakes interferes with the neighbors enjoyment of their land use. Neighbors

have the right to reasonable comfort and convenience of their land use (p. 321). By having a

neighbor who harbors 50 to 75 rattlesnakes and with 2 children being bitten by rattlesnakes,

neighbors are afraid to go outside and to allow their children to play outside for fear of

Mr. Anderson’s rattlesnakes getting loose and biting their children. Those rattlesnakes are

disturbing to the neighbors mental tranquility, even though an injury is only threatened and has

not actually occurred (p. 328).

A private nuisance is a tort, which is a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an

alleged nuisance, a court will examine three things: the defendant's fault, whether there has been

a substantial interference with the plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant's

conduct (p. 331).

Fault means that Mr. Anderson intentionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the

neighbors use and enjoyment of their property (p. 321) or that Mr. Anderson continued his

behavior after being made aware of actual harm or considerable risk of potential harm to the

plaintiff. For example, Mr. Anderson continues to harbor rattlesnakes after learning that his

rattlesnakes have bitten others. If it is alleged that Mr. Anderson has violated an ordinance, it

will surely establish fault.

In order to establish liability under a nuisance case, interference with the neighbors’

interests must be substantial (pp. 331, 337). To determine whether an interference is substantial,

courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with reasonable temperament

and behavior (p. 321).

If the interference with the neighbors’ interests is substantial, the court must determine

that it is unreasonable for the neighbors to bear it with or without compensation. The nature and
 Nuisance Essay 3

seriousness of the harm is compared with the burden of preventing the harm and the behavior (p.

334).

Mr. Anderson may be able to evade liability by arguing that certain licenses or zoning

laws may allow him to harbor so many rattlesnakes for the use of anti-venom. Only if

Mr. Anderson’s behavior is unreasonable will he be excused from liability.

Mr. Anderson may also argue that neighbors moved into their properties after he had

already been living in the neighborhood for some time (p.327). Even if this was true, new

neighbors are also entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. However, this

argument may be taken into account in actually making the determination of the reasonableness

of Mr. Anderson’s behavior. This may also have a bearing in the determination of damages,

because the price of the property may have actually reflected the nuisance.

Compensation for nuisance is usually monetary damages (p.337). An Injunction or

abatement may be appropriate under certain circumstances (p.337). An injunction would order

Mr. Anderson to stop, remove, restrain, or restrict a nuisance or cancel his plans for an exposed

nuisance (p.337). In public nuisance cases, for example, a fine or sentence could be imposed, as

well as abatement or injunction (pp.337-338).

Injunction would be an extreme remedy, because it is usually only used when damage or

the threat of damage is severe. As well, it is not a satisfactory compensation only by monetary

damages.

Abatement by the neighbors is plausible, but only under restricted circumstances.

However, abatement must be made within a reasonable time after learning of the nuisance. Also,

Mr. Anderson would need to be notified and he not responding to that notice. However, I
 Nuisance Essay 4

believe, in this particular case where there is an immediate danger to health or life, no notice

would be required.
 Nuisance Essay 5

References

Buckley, W. and Okrent, C. (2004). Torts and Personal Injury Law, Third Edition. Clifton Park,

NY: Delmar Learning.