December 2, 2015

Injunction Relief
o In morgan v. high penn oil co
Injunction relief was granted
o Estancias Dallas corp. v. Schultz
Air conditioner noise case
Injunctions begin to look at costs and benefits (utilitarian)
First requirement
Continuation of private nuisance is serving and/or necessary for
some public interest (benefits to the general public)
In order to preserve public interest we need to deny the
injunction
If there were some other place to put this then you may be
required to do it or may be some was to control the output then
you might be required to do it
Benefits was the number of available apartments
But it reduced cost of the local houses significantly
Injunction affirmed

o Reasons for not granting injunction (all need to be satisfied)

1) important public benefit (not just private)
2)it would be impossible to reduce or change output without affecting
the public benefit
3) no significant health threat
4) compensate plaintiff
o Boomer v. Atlantic cement co.
The court says they have done everything they can do an an injunction
would just shut the plant down and giving them time may not help
Trial court said injunction would provide negative effect to the town.
They look at the public benefit, they look at change of output
Defendant would or could buy them out
As long as they are compensated for all the loss they have it is just
Ultrahazardous Activities
o Isolated Pockets
o Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus
If not a wild animal that is not normally dangerous, you have to have
knowledge of animals vicious character
Tries to argue that the incident is not a result of Balu (elephants vicious
nature)
However if we do not account for this it would lead to dangerous results
(tiger on bed with no intention to act causes a heart attack) not a good
 example because this is due to its vicious nature (people assume tigers
are dangerous)
Elephants are dangerous because of their size
Characteristics can be part of vicious character