4 March 2005


D&M, pp. 296-98. Text: Basic Rules on Nuisance

D&M, pp. 298-305. Waschak v. Moffat

D&M, pp. 305-10. Questions

D&M, pp. 311-16. Bootner v. Atlantic Cement Co.

D&M, pp. 317-18. Problems

Tighten up Coase analysis


Principles (p283)

in the absence of certainty about costs and benefits:

Consider Grokster:

Nuisance is mechanism for recognizing entitlements, imposing costs

Nuisance Hypo

Students who were trying to study sue Lahn, Hill, Schafermeyer for nuisance

Quote “rotten eggs on doorstep, rotten eggs in pocket” p305

Studious student=resident

Hill = bicycle plant, or maybe Bair

Conduct=playing guitar inside 565 West Adams

No-law: studious student could pay Hill not to play

Or give studious student entitlement—Hill might pay him to permit playing


P296-297 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822 (definition of tort); § 827 (gravity of harm factors); § 828 (utility of defendant’s conduct)

What effects of different remedies?

(If time) work through wilderness problem