Prah had solar panels on his home. Later, Maretti began
building a home next door to Prah. Maretti's home would have blocked the
sun and reduced the value of Prah's solar panels.
Prah built his home only 10 feet away from the edge of
his property.
Prah sued Maretti in order to force him to build his home
further away from Prah's property line.
Maretti agreed to move his home some, but not enough to
satisfy Prah.
Maretti wanted a view of the lake, and if he moved it
any further he couldn't see the lake.
The Trial Court denied Prah's injunction against Maretti
and granted Maretti summary judgment. Prah appealed.
The Trial Court found that since Maretti's house
conformed with zoning laws, there was no nuisance.
The Appellate Court reversed and ordered a trial.
In the past, courts have refused to consider blocking
sunlight a nuisance. However, this was mainly due to the sunlight
was valued only for aesthetic enjoyment.
The Appellate Court weighed the gravity of the harm
against the utility costs. In specific, they considered:
Gravity of Harm:
The extent of the harm involved.
The character of the harm involved.
The social value of that the law attaches to the type
of use or enjoyment invaded.
The suitability of the particular use or enjoyment
invaded to the character of the locality.
The burden on the person harmed of avoiding the harm.
Utility of Conduct
The social value that the law attaches to the primary
purpose of the conduct.
The suitability of the conduct to the character of the
locality.
The impracticability of preventing or avoiding the
invasion.
The Appellate Court found that there were questions of
fact as to the gravity of harm vs. the utility costs. These are
questions for a jury to decide.
In a dissent, it was argued that nuisance only
occurs when the act is intentional and unreasonable. Also, there is
liability only to those to whom it causes significant harm, the kind that
would be suffered by a normal person under reasonable circumstances.
Was it reasonable that Prah wanted to use solar power?
He could have switched to propane. Or, he could have built his home on
the other side of his lot and would have avoided this problem.
Does the encouragement of solar power outweigh the harm to
Maretti in not being able to see the lake?
