nuisance doctrine in Pennsylvania

2015Furthermore, the court reasoned, “while the law provides that a nuisance action may be founded on negligent conduct, a negligence claim cannot solely be based on facts which support the nuisance claim.” Id., at 27 (citing Horne , at 959-60).

2014For their first issue on appeal, the Residents contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Farm Parties with regard to whether section 954(a) of the RTFA bars the Residents’ nuisance claim. 2 Our legislature passed the RTFA in 1982 in an effort to “protect agricultural operations from the encroachment of nonagricultural uses and the nuisance suits which inevitably follow.” Home v. Haladay, 728 A.2d 954, 956 (Pa.Super.1999).

2017This detriment, according to the Haughs, is similar to that of the licensee in Commonwealth v. Sal-Mar Amusements, Inc., 630 A.2d 1269, 1272 (Pa. Super. 1993), which appealed an order closing it for one year after it was 14 found to be a nuisance bar.

2013More recently, the United States Supreme Court has further recognized that sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas is closely related to the common law doctrine of nuisance: “no individual has a right to use his property so as to create a nuisance or otherwise harm others....” Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 , 490 n. 20, 107 S.Ct. 1232 , 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987); see also Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). .

2013More recently, the United States Supreme Court has further recognized that sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas is closely related to the common law doctrine of nuisance: “no individual has a right to use his property so as to create a nuisance or otherwise harm others....” Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 , 490 n. 20, 107 S.Ct. 1232 , 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987); see also Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 , 112 S.Ct. 2886 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). .

2012See Lilliquist v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc., 21 A.3d 1233, 1235 (Pa.Super.2011) (“appellate court may affirm decision on any grounds supported by the record on appeal”).

2012Co., 159 Pa. 273 , 28 A. 161, 163 (1893) (plaintiff claimed that a private bridge, erected on a street in front of plaintiffs building, was a nuisance; Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations began to run on the nuisance claim “no later than the time when the work ... had progressed to such an extent as to obstruct ingress and egress to and from [plaintiffs] property to the streets”).

2012Co., 159 Pa. 273 , 28 A. 161, 163 (1893) (plaintiff claimed that a private bridge, erected on a street in front of plaintiffs building, was a nuisance; Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations began to run on the nuisance claim “no later than the time when the work ... had progressed to such an extent as to obstruct ingress and egress to and from [plaintiffs] property to the streets”).

2002Mo. 1996) (a party has no duty to a subsequent owner to maintain its property in a certain condition; the law of negligence cannot be expanded to allow a current owner of property to seek recovery against a prior landowner for a condition created on property by the prior owner); Truck Components Inc. v. K-H Corp., supra, 1995 WL 692541 at 12 (current owner cannot maintain a nuisance claim, private or public, against a prior owner); and Hanlin Group Inc. v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 759 F. Supp. 925, 935-37 (D.

1993Although I agree that conduct which poses a threat of immediate and irreparable harm to the public health may be enjoined under the common law doctrine of nuisance, see Muehlieb v. City of Philadelphia, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 133, 140, 574 A.2d 1208, 1211 (1990), the harm to the public health created by the conduct enjoined must be “practically certain, not merely probable.” Ranck, 467 Pa. at 578 , 359 A.2d at 752 .

1993Although I agree that conduct which poses a threat of immediate and irreparable harm to the public health may be enjoined under the common law doctrine of nuisance, see Muehlieb v. City of Philadelphia, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 133, 140, 574 A.2d 1208, 1211 (1990), the harm to the public health created by the conduct enjoined must be "practically certain, not merely probable." Ranck, 467 Pa. at 578 , 359 A.2d at 752 .

1945As pointed out in Harris et ux. v. Lewistown Trust Co., supra, p. 153, the nuisance doctrine “is confined to third persons or strangers to the premises, those ‘either the owners or occupants of near-by property, persons temporarily on such property, or persons on a neighboring highway or other public places’: 1 Tiffany, supra, 674; 16 R.