Common Law Case Study

Our client Ms. Melody Larson (“Ms. Larson”) has contacted our office to seek advice on whether she has any legal recourse. She wants to have Ferdinand Sahayko (“Mr. Sahayko”) to stop his operation of the industrial plant he owns or making him handle the operation in a way that will allow her to be able to return to do business as before. This determination will be based on whether the operation Mr. Sahayko’s plant constitute a nuisance under the laws of Florida.

There is no statute in the state of Florida covering the tort of private nuisance; nevertheless, common law provides sufficient precedence on the topic. Under the common law approach, we have to examine two factors; (1) The right of use of own property, and (2) the duty not to injure the property of another. Anything which annoys or disturbs one in the free use, possession or enjoyment of his property or which renders its ordinary use or occupation physically uncomfortable may become a nuisance and may be restrained. Surfside v. Cty. Line Land Co., 340 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Florida courts have repeatedly found that every owner has the right to enjoy his property, under both a legal use and a use which does not interfere with the right of others to enjoy their own properties. According to Chief Justice Roberts “[T]he law of private nuisance is

Properties that are located in industrial zoning approved areas, are expected to be impacted by the nature of the industries in the area. In respect to previously mentioned facts, the court held “‘It appears to be well settled that if one voluntarily elects to live in an industrial area, he cannot complain of noise, noxious odors or any other unpleasant factors that may arise from the normal operation of businesses in the area ...’" Corbett v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 166 So. 2d 196, 203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964) (quoting Lee v. Florida Public Utilities Co., Fla., 145 So.2d 299