Simulation: Environmental Nuisance Lawsuit - Case Study Example

The implementation of environmental legislations or any other law enforcements agencies today, makes it very easy for a person to win the upper hand in a case where he is reporting rightfully. However, some people today are not suing to rectify matters, but are looking for ways to get an easy buck through the judicial system. The case at hand talks about a group of people living near a dairy farm, and the issue is whether the processing of manure is a public nuisance to the people living nearby. A Mr. Chris Lively has been sued for the purpose that the farmhouse he owns, Northfield Farm, indulges in creation and processing of large amounts of manure which causes problems for the neighbors.

The lawsuit has been filed by Mr. Sam Anxious who shares a boundary wall with the farm, along with other neighbors. The problem is that the Northfield Farm is the biggest farm in the area, and has great amounts of manure to deal with. Not only does the aromatic pollution come forward as a suffering, but also, in heavy rainfall spells, the manure overflows and enters the local river, which can become a cause of illness for the locals residing in the area. Also, the strong smell of manure hinders the locals from enjoying benefits of using the Bountiful State Park.

However, Chris Livelys side of the story says that he tries his best to hinder the manure from becoming a menace for the neighbors, but some problems should be neglected like manure overflow in times of heavy rain spells and should be considered an accident. Mr. Sam Anxious think that it is violation of his property if he cannot enjoy his land due to the manures smell and he considers it trespassing if the manure flows into his land. Thus, he demands Mr. Chris Lively to be fined heavily. However, in the end, the judge announces a decision that suits both parties equally. Mr. Chris Lively receives a grant of 30 days in which he overcomes the problem of manure overflow control and is liable to giving his neighbor, Mr.

Sam Anxious $500 as penalty charges. The scenario kept in mind, the decision of choosing who is right and is declared the winner is determined by the following legal questions: Is the processing of manure that causes aromatic pollution in the nearby area an intentional action to make the surroundings suffer? Is it a crime big enough to be reported and is it justified to sue the farmers for being responsible for carrying out this activity? The first point to be analyzed it whether the dairy farm is an area where the legal system allows farming.

If the authorities allow farming in the area, the neighbors have to realize and understand that such activities will be practiced in the area. As it is pointed out in the court trial, the farmhouse had been present and very much under operation when Mr. Sam Anxious moved next doors, it is clear that he was aware of what conditions he would have to face living there. Secondly, Mr. Chris Lively points out his attempts to cause as less a problem for the neighbors as possible. He handles the manure through storage lagoons so as to avoid the mess as much as possible, thus his intentions are not of driving away the neighbors or making them sick.

Thus, in my decision, it was wrong of Mr. Sam Anxious and the neighbors to file a lawsuit against Mr. Chris Lively, as he had not been intentionally breaking any laws and the manure smell should be acceptable to the neighbors as they live near a big farm.ReferencesA. L. Lisa (2000) The Official Guide to Legal Specialties. Chicago. J.L. Matthews (2003) The Lawsuit Survival Guide. United States: Delta Printing Solutions Inc.