As I read the complaint I kept thinking, put this quote in the lead, copy and paste this paragraph in, at the top. Over and over again I wanted to put quotes and whole paragraphs -- always at the top of the post, because this complaint is so well written. So it’s just copy and pasted in entirety below (with the name Mary Jones replacing the real name of the plaintiff).
A few short notes about public nuisance law:
***********
(From South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 52, P. 287, 2001)
During the past few years, more than a score of municipalities (and the State of New York) have brought suit against gun manufacturers, distributors and retailers, seeking to hold them accountable for the consequences of gun violence within the municipalities' jurisdiction. This article critically assesses whether the theory of public nuisance is an appropriate vehicle for bringing such suits. Inasmuch as public nuisance theory is itself only dimly understood, the article begins with an historical summary of public nuisance law. It then considers contemporary objections to the continued vitality of public nuisance, and concludes that, properly defined and limited, public nuisance can be appropriately employed to hold gun sellers responsible for truly outrageous conduct, typically in cases involving the subversion or avoidance of legislative will.
State legislatures, such as those in California and Iowa, have defined public nuisance as anything “injurious to health” or “indecent” or “unreasonably offensive to the senses” that interferes “with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” or “unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use.” Rhode Island’s Supreme Court held that public nuisance is “harm” that people are either suffering or threatened which they “ought not have to bear."
**************
1. English Common Law
The tort of nuisance dates back to twelfth century English common law.19 It began as a criminal writ, belonging only to the Crown. It was used in cases that involved encroachments upon the King’s land or the blocking of public roads or waterways. The King sought to punish these criminal infringements, commonly known as “purprestures,” through criminal proceedings. 20 Over time, activities prosecuted as public nuisances included everything from embezzling public funds to having a tiger pen next to a highway, from assisting a homicidal maniac to escape to placing a mutilated corpse on a doorstep.
By the fourteenth century, public nuisance principles were extended to include rights common to the public, such as roadway safety, air and water pollution, disorderly conduct and public health (e.g., to stop the spread of disease)
Long before any governmental regulations existed—nuisance provided a flexible judicial remedy to address conflict land use and social welfare
From:
http://www.nuisancelaw.com/learn/historical
********
In 1875, Horace Wood, was the first American to write a treatise on nuisance describing the doctrine as a “wilderness of law.
***********
When the offending act is so outlandish there are no laws against it -- such as a catholic priest sodomizing an altar boy -- public nuisance can fill the gap, where no law dares to go.
And here it stands today, from that same website:
Ultimately, the expanded language in Section 821B allowed courts, in a narrow way, to find the existence of a public nuisance in cases involving conduct that previously was not considered tortious. Section 821B includes and defines three factors to be used in guiding courts as to the meaning of “‘unreasonable,’” two of which—factors (a) and (c)—use very nebulous, open-ended language. It is these ambiguities and vagaries that being used by creative advocates and jurists. Instead of untangling the “jungle” grown by 900 years of confused jurisprudence, and despite the clear warnings contained in the Restatement’s comments, Section 821B has become a license for some judges and jurors to provide their own definitions of “unreasonable interference” and “a right common to the general public.
**************
A few short notes about public nuisance law:
***********
(From South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 52, P. 287, 2001)
During the past few years, more than a score of municipalities (and the State of New York) have brought suit against gun manufacturers, distributors and retailers, seeking to hold them accountable for the consequences of gun violence within the municipalities' jurisdiction. This article critically assesses whether the theory of public nuisance is an appropriate vehicle for bringing such suits. Inasmuch as public nuisance theory is itself only dimly understood, the article begins with an historical summary of public nuisance law. It then considers contemporary objections to the continued vitality of public nuisance, and concludes that, properly defined and limited, public nuisance can be appropriately employed to hold gun sellers responsible for truly outrageous conduct, typically in cases involving the subversion or avoidance of legislative will.
State legislatures, such as those in California and Iowa, have defined public nuisance as anything “injurious to health” or “indecent” or “unreasonably offensive to the senses” that interferes “with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property,” or “unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use.” Rhode Island’s Supreme Court held that public nuisance is “harm” that people are either suffering or threatened which they “ought not have to bear."
**************
1. English Common Law
The tort of nuisance dates back to twelfth century English common law.19 It began as a criminal writ, belonging only to the Crown. It was used in cases that involved encroachments upon the King’s land or the blocking of public roads or waterways. The King sought to punish these criminal infringements, commonly known as “purprestures,” through criminal proceedings. 20 Over time, activities prosecuted as public nuisances included everything from embezzling public funds to having a tiger pen next to a highway, from assisting a homicidal maniac to escape to placing a mutilated corpse on a doorstep.
By the fourteenth century, public nuisance principles were extended to include rights common to the public, such as roadway safety, air and water pollution, disorderly conduct and public health (e.g., to stop the spread of disease)
Long before any governmental regulations existed—nuisance provided a flexible judicial remedy to address conflict land use and social welfare
From:
http://www.nuisancelaw.com/learn/historical
********
In 1875, Horace Wood, was the first American to write a treatise on nuisance describing the doctrine as a “wilderness of law.
***********
When the offending act is so outlandish there are no laws against it -- such as a catholic priest sodomizing an altar boy -- public nuisance can fill the gap, where no law dares to go.
And here it stands today, from that same website:
Ultimately, the expanded language in Section 821B allowed courts, in a narrow way, to find the existence of a public nuisance in cases involving conduct that previously was not considered tortious. Section 821B includes and defines three factors to be used in guiding courts as to the meaning of “‘unreasonable,’” two of which—factors (a) and (c)—use very nebulous, open-ended language. It is these ambiguities and vagaries that being used by creative advocates and jurists. Instead of untangling the “jungle” grown by 900 years of confused jurisprudence, and despite the clear warnings contained in the Restatement’s comments, Section 821B has become a license for some judges and jurors to provide their own definitions of “unreasonable interference” and “a right common to the general public.
**************
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
