Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Part-Four-Rights-As-To-The-Use-And-Profits-Of-Another-s-Land-Chapter-XI-Natur.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:41:22+00:00

Document:
336. Rights restrictive of another's user exceptional.
338. Rights as to air.
(g) Non-riparian owner's right of action, (h) Restoration of former conditions.
(b) Discharge into natural water course.
(c) Discharge on lower land.
Sec. 343. Water artificially accumulated.
346. Subjacent support. 347. Suspension of rights.
The owner of land has, as against the owners of other land in the neigh-borhood, four classes of rights as regards his own land: firstly, in so far as he is in actual or constructive possession of his land, a right to freedom from interference with his possession, enforcible by an action of trespass or its statutory equivalent; secondly, a right to demand that the owners of neighboring land shall exercise due care not to cause physical damage to his land or to erections thereon; thirdly, a right, or possible right, to demand that, irrespective of any question of due care, an owner of neighboring land shall not cause physical damage of a more or less permanent character to his land or to erections thereon, as the result of a condition intentionally created on such neighboring owner's land, and fourthly, a right to demand that the owner of neighboring land shall not, by his mode of utilizing or enjoying his land, interfere with the enjoyment, or possible enjoyment, of the former's land.
Of the various classes of rights above enumerated, the first two, that is, the right to immunity from trespass, and the right to immunity from damage by reason of lack of due care, would seem to call for consideration in a work on torts rather than in one on the law of land. The third class of rights, that of absolute immunity from physical damage to one's land or to erections thereon, of a permanent or quasi permanent character, by reason of some particular condition created on neighboring land, that is, from damage caused by such condition even in the absence of negligence, appears also to be properly a subject for consideration in connection with the law of torts. The question of the existence and extent of such rights, involving an absolute liability on the part of neighboring land owners for physical damage, has been the subject of a very considerable amount of discussion, and must be regarded as far from settled.1 We will in this work refer merely to the more important classes of cases in which such a right has been asserted to exist.2 The fourth class of rights in a landowner as against his neighbor, that to demand that the latter shall refrain, not from causing physical damage to the former's land, but from interference with the enjoyment or possible enjoyment thereof, is so intimately connected with the question of the rights of enjoyment incident to land, as to appear to call for consideration in a work on real property. Logically rights of this character might more properly be discussed in a previous chapter of this work,3 since they are not properly rights as to the use of another's land, but merely rights to non interference with one's own enjoyment by reason of such use, but it is convenient to consider them at this stage, in view of their intimate association with the law of easements, the subject of the following chapter. Indeed they are sometimes referred to as easements, but with doubtful propriety, and we adopt the expression "natural rights" to describe these different phases of a general right in the landowner freely to enjoy the use of his land in its natural condition, without interference by his neighbors.
1. See articles by Professor Francis H. Bohlen, 59 University of Penna. Law Rev. pp. 298, 373, 423, by Professor Jeremiah Smith, 17 Columbia Law Rev. p. 382, 30 Harv. Law Rev. pp. 241, 319, 409, and references in these articles.
2. See Post, Sec.Sec. 343-346.
3a. As to the general theory of recovery for diminution in the value of land by reason of a made of neighboring land,3b as for instance, its use for the storage or manufacture of explosives3c The right of a landowner, moreover, so far as it may exist, to immunity from the presence or passage of appliances, projectiles or the like above his land,3d may also be regarded as a natural right, it enuring by way of protection, if not of his actual enjoyment of his land, at least of his possible enjoyment thereof. We also discuss in this chapter what are known as the rights of lateral and subjacent support, though these, as being, not rights as to freedom from interference with enjoyment, but rather rights of immunity from damage to the physical structure of one's land, belong more properly to the third class of rights above referred to.
Though these natural rights, so called, will be here discussed only as they exist against those in possession of or utilizing neighboring land, similar dangerous condition on adjoining land, see editorial note 28 Yale Law Journ. 171, apparently by Professor Cook.
3b. Occasionally relief has apparently been given against the occupation of neighboring land by a special class of hospital, by reason merely of a prevailing impression that the vicinity of such a hospital is a source of danger, without regard to the correctness of this impression. See Stotler v. Rochelle, 83 Kan. 86, 109 Pac. 788; Everett v. Paschall, 61 Wash. 47, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 827, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1128, 111 Pac. 879; Baltimore v. Fairfield Improvement Co., 87 Md. 352, 39 Atl. 1081, 67 Am. St. Rep. 344, 40 L. R. A. 494; Deaconess Hospital v. Bontjes, 207 111. 553, 64 L. R. A. 215, 69 N. E. 748.
E. Ann. Cas. 590, 16 L. R. A. N. S. 691; Whaley v. Sloss Sheffield S & I. Co., 164 Ala. 216, 20 Ann. Cas. 82, 51 So. 419; Remsberg v. Iola Portland Cement Co., 73 Kan. 66, 84 Pac. 548; State v. Excelsior Powder Mfg. Co., 259 Mo. 254, 67 L. R. A. N. S. 1915A, 615, 169 S. W. 267; Wier's Appeal, 74 Pa. 230; Emory v. Hazard Powder Co., 22 S. C. 476, 53 Am. Rep. 730; Comminge v. Stevenson, 76 Tex. 642, 13 S. W. 566. As to other combustibles, such as gasolene, see Hendrickson v. Standard Oil Co., 126 Md. 577, 95 Atl. 153; Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co., 181 Mich. 564. 148 N. W. 437, 52 L R. A. N. S. 930; O'Hara v. Nelson, 71 N. J. Eq. 161, 63 Atl. 836; McGregor v. Camden, 47 W. Va. 193, 34 S. E. 936. 34 S. E. 936. 3d. Ante, Sec. 251.
3e. See article by Professor Jeremiah Smith, "Reasonable Use of One's Own Property as a Justification for Damage to a Neighbor," in 17 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 383.
3f. See 4 Harv. Law Rev. 15; 13 Id. 664-668.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.