Typical Common Law Claims: Private Nuisance (continued)

Michael Goldman
Connect with me
An accomplished litigator representing his clients in complex environmental disputes throughout the country.


With respect to a private nuisance, the Texas Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a defendant’s interference with a plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of land is substantial or whether any particular effect of that interference is unreasonable requires consideration and balancing of a multitude of factors, depending on the circumstances of the case at hand.[1] Those factors include, among others:

  1. The character and nature of the neighborhood, each party’s land usage, and social expectations;
  2. The location of each party’s land and the nature of that locality;
  3. The extent to which others in the vicinity are engaging in similar conduct in the use of their land;
  4. The social utility of each property’s usage;
  5. The tendency or likelihood that the defendant’s conduct will cause interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of their land;
  6. The magnitude, extent, degree, frequency, or duration of the interference and resulting harm;
  7. The relative capacity of each party to bear the burden of ceasing or mitigating the usage of their land;
  8. The timing of each party’s conduct or usage that creates the conflict;
  9. The defendant’s motive in causing the interference; and
  10. The interests of the community and the public at large.[2]
Do you have questions? You can get our FREE ebook, Environmental Litigation: What Every Attorney and Environmental Professional Needs to Know, just by providing your name and email address at this link.  We promise your information won’t be shared with third persons. And if you’d like to speak with me about your case, I welcome your phone call at 972-850-8490. I look forward to speaking with you.

[1] Id.

[2] Rankin v. FPL Energy, LLC, 266 S.W.3d 506, 509 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. denied).

Be the first to comment!
Post a Comment