Source: https://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/00me65ea.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:16:32+00:00

Document:
MANFORD F. EATON et al.
FRANCIS A. CORMIER et al.
award.  We affirm the judgment.
Town of Stonington v. Galilean Gospel Temple, 1999 ME 2, 722 A.2d 1269.
quarry and testimony from Cormier's son who acts as foreman at the quarry.
activities constituted a private nuisance and from which the parties appeal.
discretion.  See State v. Shattuck, 2000 ME 38, ¶ 23, 747 A.2d 174, __.
activities, but nevertheless allowed for limited operations to continue.  Cf.
Daugherty v. Ashton Feed and Grain Co., Inc., 303 N.W.2d 64, 70 (Neb.
discretion of the trial court).
will disturb a damage award only if there is no basis in the evidence for it.
proved."  Pettengill v. Turo, 159 Me. 350, 356, 193 A.2d 367, 372 (1963).
This compensation may include elements for inconvenience and annoyance.
See Gillison v. Farrin, 632 A.2d 143, 144 (Me. 1993).
nuisance, see Jacques v. Pioneer Plastics, Inc., 676 A.2d 504, 508 (Me.
see, e.g., Escobar v. Continental Baking Co., 596 N.E.2d 394, 397-98 (Mass.
basis in the evidence before it, and therefore, we will not disturb the award.
Torts § 838 (1979)); see also State v. Charpentier, 489 A.2d 594, 599 (N.H.
(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 838 & 839 (1979)); Benton v.
nuisance which the owner knowingly suffers to remain") (emphasis added).
undue risk of a nuisance . . . he is liable for the harm caused by the activity."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 838
 v. 
 v.