Environmental Nuisance Lawsuit - Essay Example

We are told that judge has already denied an earlier motion by Chris Lively to dismiss the charges, and will now decide by Bench Trial without jury whether the Common Law offences of nuisance and trespass have been violated in the light of the facts presented. One issue is whether the aroma of the manure being created and processed by the farm is a public nuisance. The second issue is that when there is rainfall, manure being transported across the stonewall leaks out of the pipe and is deposited into a public waterway, the Nishna River, and that the health of the citizens may be jeopardized by this as many people use it as a source of drinking water.

Moreover the spillover also renders a nearby park unusable (Elliott & Quinn, 2007). The judge has very carefully noted all the facts and made a judgment which I totally agree with. He has held the owner of Northfield Farm, Chris Lively liable for the runoff caused during the rainstorms and for causing a public nuisance because it goes into the public waterway and can very well pose a health risk; besides this the uncontrolled spill of the waste has rendered a public park unusable due to the manure deposits as well as the horrific smell.

Chris is guilty of trespassing Sam Anxious’ property because part of the manure was deposited there too due to the leakage of the pipe during the rainfall and the judge directs him to repay Sam the $500 spent by him to clean up the mess caused by the rainfall. Meanwhile since Sam moved into the adjoining property after Northfield Farm was already in operation, he could have reasonably expected that living near such a large farm would require him to put up with the difficulties caused by the aroma.

The judge had also decreed that though in his opinion Northfield Farm has made reasonable precautions for holding and transporting the liquid manure across the farm, the inadvertent deposits on Sam Anxious’ property and the nearby park made both these places less usable. He has recognized the distress caused to Sam Anxious and others living near the farm. He also threatens to levy a fine of $1,000 per day on Chris Lively if they do not take additional precautions to respect the rights of others and also directs that the manure and watering be stopped during rainfall as it could pose a health hazard and cause danger to the health and lives of citizens and neighbors (McAdams, 2008).

Issues: The legal questions that need to be answered here are: 1. Is there an issue of trespassing caused by the actions of the automatic sprayers on Northfield Farm due to the inadvertent deposits made on Sam Anxious’ adjoining property? Is Chris Lively liable for this and the payment of cleanup costs? 2. Is there an issue of trespassing and public nuisance caused by the leakages observed during the rainstorms, and deposits in the Nishna River? Does it pose a health hazard to users of the water? 3. If the aroma and inadvertent deposits by the sprayers are also causing the public not to use the nearby park, does it constitute a public nuisance caused by Northfield Farm? 4. Is it reasonable to assume that taking up residence near a large farm such as Northfield would automatically entail putting up with the nuisance of the aroma and the inadvertent deposits that Sam Anxious and other residents have to face every day? 5. If there is an inadvertent leakage caused by a leaking pipe or a break in the stonewall or transportation mechanism for the liquid manure, should Chris Lively have to bear the cost every time