Opinion ID: 1470023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Public Nuisance in Rhode Island

Text: As the law of public nuisance began to take hold in Rhode Island, it reflected the principle so long ago laid down by Lord Holt, that `in every case where a statute enacts or prohibits a thing for the benefit of a person, he shall have a remedy upon the same statute for the thing enacted for his advantage, or for the recompense of the wrong done to him contrary to the said law.' Aldrich v. Howard, 7 R.I. 199, 213 (1862) (quoting Couch v. Steel, 3 Ellis and Blackburn, (77 Eng. C.L.R.) 411). Some of Rhode Island's earliest cases involved activities designated as common nuisances by the General Assembly. Those cases recognized that `a public nuisance becomes a private one to him who is specially and in some particular way inconvenienced thereby   .' State v. Keeran, 5 R.I. 497, 511 (1858). See also State v. Paul, 5 R.I. 185, 194 (1858) (an action for abatement of a public nuisance may be brought by those who are specially injured or obstructed). In Rhode Island, actions to abate public nuisances originally were brought in the form of an indictment. Keeran, 5 R.I. at 511; Paul, 5 R.I. at 194. Today, the state Attorney General is empowered to bring actions to abate public nuisances. See G.L. 1956 § 42-9-2 (vesting the Attorney General with the power to commence a public nuisance suit) and G.L. 1956 § 10-1-1 (providing that [w]henever a nuisance is alleged to exist, the attorney general    may bring an action in the name of the state    to abate the nuisance). Public nuisance long has been recognized as a legally viable cause of action in Rhode Island. See J.S. Thornton & Co. v. Smith Grant & Co., 10 R.I. 477, 483 (1873) (The law [of public nuisance] as declared in the English cases has been recognized by the courts of this country   .). Over centuries, this Court has taken careful steps to refine the common law definition of public nuisance to reflect societal changes. We are cognizant of the fact that the common law is a knowable judicial corpus and, as such, serves the important social value of stability; although the common law does evolve, that evolution takes place gradually and incrementally and usually in a direction that can be predicted. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Peters) 591, 671, 8 L.Ed. 1055 (1834) ([a] great proportion of the rules and maxims which constitute the immense code of the common law, grew into use by gradual adoption); see also John T. Loughran, Some Reflections on the Role of Judicial Precedent, 22 Fordham L. Rev. 1, 3 (1953) (noting that [t]he common law has been able to maintain its preeminent place over the centuries because of its stability and its inherent capacity for keeping pace with the demands of an ever-changing and ever-growing civilization). In so evolving, the law reflects, inter alia, the felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, [and the] intuitions of public policy   . Holmes, The Common Law at 1. Although we recognize the need for such incremental changes, [16] like most courts, we are particularly loath to indulge in the abrupt abandonment of settled principles and distinctions that have been carefully developed over the years. Loughran, 22 Fordham L. Rev. at 8. This Court has defined public nuisance as an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake v. Davis, 420 A.2d 53, 59 (R.I. 1980). See also Hydro-Manufacturing, Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 640 A.2d 950, 957 (R.I.1994). [I]t is behavior that unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, peace, comfort or convenience of the general community. Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake, 420 A.2d at 59 (citing Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 564, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968, 971 (1977)). Put another way, public nuisance is an act or omission which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all. Iafrate v. Ramsden, 96 R.I. 216, 222, 190 A.2d 473, 476 (1963) (citing Prosser, Torts, ch. 14, § 71 at 401 (2d ed. 1955)). Although this Court previously has not had the opportunity to address all the elements of public nuisance, to the extent that we have addressed this common law cause of action, our definition largely is consistent with that of many other jurisdictions, the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and several scholarly commentators. The Restatement (Second) defines public nuisance, in relevant part, as follows: (1) A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. (2) Circumstances that may sustain a holding that an interference with a public right is unreasonable include the following: (a) Whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort or the public convenience   . 4 Restatement (Second) Torts § 821B at 87. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, considering facts that were virtually identical to those in this case, elaborated on the necessary elements to maintain a public nuisance action. In that case, the New Jersey court held: First, a public nuisance, by definition, is related to conduct, performed in a location within the actor's control, which has an adverse effect on a common right. Second, a private party who has suffered special injury may seek to recover damages to the extent of the special injury and, by extension, may also seek to abate. Third, a public entity which proceeds against the one in control of the nuisance may only seek to abate, at the expense of the one in control of the nuisance. These time-honored elements of the tort of public nuisance must be our guide in our consideration of whether these complaints have stated such a claim. In re Lead Paint Litigation, 191 N.J. 405, 924 A.2d 484, 499 (2007). This Court recognizes three principal elements that are essential to establish public nuisance: (1) an unreasonable interference; (2) with a right common to the general public; (3) by a person or people with control over the instrumentality alleged to have created the nuisance when the damage occurred. After establishing the presence of the three elements of public nuisance, one must then determine whether the defendant caused the public nuisance. We will address each element in turn.