(1) In determining whether a defendant's use of property constitutes a private nuisance, the judge or jury, whichever is the trier of fact, shall consider all relevant facts and circumstances including the following:
(a) The lawful nature of the defendant's use of the property;
(b) The manner in which the defendant has used the property;
(c) The importance of the defendant's use of the property to the community;
(d) The influence of the defendant's use of property to the growth and prosperity of the community;
(e) The kind, volume, and duration of the annoyance or interference with the use and enjoyment of claimant's property caused by the defendant's use of property;
(f) The respective situations of the defendant and claimant; and
(g) The character of the area in which the defendant's property is located, including, but not limited to, all applicable statutes, laws, or regulations.
(2) A defendant's use of property shall be considered as a substantial annoyance or interference with the use and enjoyment of a claimant's property if it would substantially annoy or interfere with the use and enjoyment of property by a person of ordinary health and normal sensitivities. Effective: May 24, 1991 History: Created 1991 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 11, sec. 6, effective May 24, 1991.
Notes of Decisions
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Wilhite, 143 S.W.3d 604 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “KRS 411.550 presents the illustrative factors to be considered in determining the existence of a private nuisance: (1) In determining whether a defendant’s use of property constitutes a private nuisance, the .”
Bell v. DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC, 640 F. Supp. 2d 890 (W.D. Ky. 2009).
· cites it 4× “KRS § 411.550. 6 . Counsel settled without submitting any class member for depositions, without pursuing class action certification and without filing any expert witness reports to strengthen the case.”
Barnette v. Grizzly Processing, LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 636 (E.D. Ky. 2011).
“Under § 411.550, a private nuisance exists when a defendant’s use of his property “substantially annoy[s] or interfere^] with the [the claimant’s] use and enjoyment of [his] property.”
Herndon v. Wilson, 524 S.W.3d 490 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “In this case, whether the Wilsons have unreasonably diverted water onto the Herndon property and caused damages is a disputed issue of fact based on the record before this Court. Additionally, the allegations that the Wilsons have impeded the Hern-dons’ quiet and peaceful use…”
Steve Hubbard v. Prestress Servs. Indus., LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).
“The 5 Specific factors to consider in determining if the defendant’s property use constitutes a nuisance are listed in KRS 411.550. -8- difference is that a permanent nuisance cannot be fixed at a reasonable cost to the owner and “[i]s relatively enduring and not likely to be…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.550(2) — 1 case
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Wilhite, 143 S.W.3d 604 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).
“KRS 411.550 presents the illustrative factors to be considered in determining the existence of a private nuisance: (1) In determining whether a defendant’s use of property constitutes a private nuisance, the .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.