Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:35:17 -0400

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Special Sensitivity and Nuisance

Dear Colleagues:

For those of you with an interest in nuisance, I would be interested in your opinion of the following fact pattern based on the classic case of Rogers v. Elliot. In Rogers, the plaintiff was affected by the defendant's ringing of a church bell which caused the plaintiff to suffer convulsions. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover because the plaintiff's use of his land was especially sensitive (he was the only one so adversely affected) and the defendant's actions were not activated by malice.

What if the facts were changed and the town in which the plaintiff lived was inhabited by a majority of people like him who suffered from the "bell ringing equals convulsions" disorder? Would the bell ringing then be a nuisance because of the local standard?

Any thoughts?

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>