John Anderson has approximately 50-75 rattlesnakes in his home located in a suburban neighborhood which he uses to produces rattlesnake antivenom and sells the rattlesnake antivenom to medical supply companies who then sell the snake antivenom to hospitals to treat victims of rattlesnake bites. Parents from the neighborhood have complained to Anderson that two children have been bitten in the past two months. Anderson has simply shrugged off each incident, stating that there was no proof that his rattlesnakes were responsible. There are no other producers of rattlesnake antivenom in the neighborhood which is located in the southwest, where rattlesnakes are common. A town ordinance prohibits the keeping of wildlife, including rattlesnakes, within the city limits. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the various nuisance action and remedies resulting from this hypothesis.
Nuisance action can be defined as the legal action taken to remedy harms resulting from use personal property it can also be defined as unlawfully doing an act or omitting to perform a duty which may lead to annoyance, injury or endangering comfort and health or safety of others (Wade, 2004). Following are two ways resulting in nuisance private, public. Private nuisance can be referred as a civil wrong in which a single individual or countable number of persons are hindered in their enjoyment of their basic rights to their own properties that are not shared by the public. In this case two children are allegedly injured. It can also be defined as the use of individual property unlawfully and without considering the enjoyment of others. Or use of property owned by others. In this case the town ordinance prohibits the keeping of wildlife, including rattlesnakes, within the city limits. This clearly puts Anderson in breach of the towns zoning laws. A public-nuisance on the other hand has more far reaching effects. It has the ability to affect the health, safety, welfare, or comfort of the public in general. It can also be described as the use of property in a manner that is likely to disturb peace, comfort or decency of the immediate neighborhood. Nuisances can often be both public and private. For Anderson's use of his home to rear rattle snakes to become nuisance, it must be substantialy proven that his rattle snakes did cause the biting'. A snake bite is something that would disturban average person. As tort nuisance standards' of an average individual are put into consideration. Judgment is based on individual action or omission. If Anderson's neighbors were to sue for nuisance, they would be seeking to stop Andersons from using his home as a rattle snake antivenom factory without physically invading his property. Otherwise this can result in trespass action.
In a public nuisance, the defendant's actions effect a large or indefinite number of people, such as the community as a whole (Dodson, 2002). Thus the community has the right to seek relief for damages from the defendant in this case the community versus Anderson. This is civil action. Sometimes monetary damages are awarded in nuisance cases when the suits are brought before a judge, However it is often equitable damages. The community can also file an injunction which would requires that Anderson permanently refrain from the nuisance activity in this case rearing the rattle snakes. An injunction is a drastic action but considering the two injured children it may also be taken. Sometimes money damages are offered to the plaintiff and the defendant is still permitted to engage in the activity.In this case he may be allowed to continue producing snake antivenom but be forced to pay the injured children. The community may also choose abatement as a remedy. This is where an authorized public body or an officer would forcefully remove or destroy the rattle snakes without causing breach of peace they are also required to give reasonable notice. In private nuisance civil action may be taken or abatement by the injured person.Although Anderson is clearly in breach of the zoning laws, the neighbors would find hard to reliably proof that his rattle snake are the cause of the injuries to the two kids. This is because rattle snakes are common in the neighborhood. However if it can be determined by laws that Anderson committed nuisance then he will be subject to strict liability. This is because rattle snake bite may result in fatalities if not quickly treated. Unless it can be proven that he neglected his duties.