Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Public Nuisance

12 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Public NuisanceQuestion 1 of 12

Section 9 of the State Clean Air Act provides: A discharge that is in compliance with a valid permit issued under this Act is conclusively presumed not to be a public nuisance. This section does not preclude a municipality from adopting and enforcing emission limits more stringent than those in the permit.

A factory holds a valid state permit allowing discharge of 10 parts per million of Chemical X. The factory's discharge is 8 ppm. After the permit was issued, a city adopted an ordinance prohibiting any detectable discharge of Chemical X and declaring such a discharge a public nuisance. The city and several residents sued the factory to enjoin the discharge as a public nuisance.

Which is most likely correct?

The suit may proceed because the city may adopt more stringent emission limits and enforce them through a public-nuisance action.

The suit may proceed because the residents need not show a different-in-kind injury when the discharge violates a city ordinance.

The suit must be dismissed because the discharge complies with the state permit and is conclusively presumed not to be a public nuisance.

The suit must be dismissed because only the state environmental agency, not a city or private resident, may enforce the Clean Air Act.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Public Nuisance

Practice Public Nuisance in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Public Nuisance, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Which is most likely correct?

The suit may proceed because the city may adopt more stringent emission limits and enforce them through a public-nuisance action.
The suit may proceed because the residents need not show a different-in-kind injury when the discharge violates a city ordinance.
The suit must be dismissed because the discharge complies with the state permit and is conclusively presumed not to be a public nuisance. (correct answer)
The suit must be dismissed because only the state environmental agency, not a city or private resident, may enforce the Clean Air Act.

Explanation: Whenever you see a statute that creates a "conclusive presumption" that permit compliance equals no public nuisance, recognize it as a powerful bar to common-law tort claims. Here, the factory discharges 8 ppm, well within its 10 ppm permit, so it is in compliance. The statute then conclusively presumes this discharge is not a public nuisance. That presumption directly defeats the suit, regardless of the city's later ordinance. The ordinance does not erase the state statute's conclusive presumption; it merely allows the city to adopt and enforce stricter regulatory limits through its own administrative or injunctive processes, not through a public-nuisance action. The choice saying the suit may proceed because the city may adopt more stringent limits and enforce them through a public-nuisance action is wrong: the city's regulatory power does not create a new tort cause of action when the state statute conclusively precludes it. The choice about residents not needing a different-in-kind injury is a standing trap—it is irrelevant because the claim is dismissed on the merits due to the conclusive presumption, not for lack of standing. The choice stating only the state agency may enforce the Clean Air Act is false because the statute expressly allows municipalities to adopt and enforce more stringent limits. For the exam, always identify the specific cause of action pleaded. If it's a public nuisance, the conclusive presumption wins. Remember: regulatory authority to set stricter limits is separate from the tort immunity granted by permit compliance. So the suit must be dismissed.

Question 2

Section 3 of the State Public Nuisance Act provides: A private person may maintain an action for a public nuisance only if the person has suffered an injury different in kind from that suffered by the public generally. In any such action, the private person may recover damages only for the injury different in kind; damages may not be recovered for an injury common to the public.

The parties agree that a bridge collapse caused by Ace Construction's negligent crane operation was a public nuisance. The only bridge into downtown was closed for six months. All downtown commuters lost extra travel time. Olivia, a commuter, lost an extra hour each workday. Olivia also owned the only coffee shop on the bridge approach; during the closure her profits fell by $25,000 because bridge commuters could not reach the shop. Olivia sued Ace for her extra travel time and lost profits.

Under the Act, which is most likely correct?

Olivia may recover both her lost profits and compensation for her extra travel time because both injuries arose from the same public nuisance.
Olivia may recover her lost profits, but not compensation for her extra travel time, because the travel time is an injury common to the public. (correct answer)
Olivia may recover compensation for her extra travel time, but not her lost profits, because the lost profits are too speculative to be a different-in-kind injury.
Olivia may not recover anything because she suffered the same extra travel time as all other commuters and thus lacks a different-in-kind injury.

Explanation: Whenever you see a public nuisance question, your first move is to parse the standing and damages rule. Here, the Act creates a strict gate: a private plaintiff may recover only for an injury that is "different in kind" from the public's, and cannot recover for any injury common to the public. This is a statutory variation on the classic rule, so focus on classifying each of Olivia's harms. Olivia has two distinct injuries. Her extra hour of travel time each workday is exactly what every other commuter suffered—it is the quintessential injury common to the public, so it is barred. Her $25,000 in lost profits, however, stems from her unique status as the only coffee shop on the bridge approach. That is a harm suffered by her alone, different in kind from the general inconvenience, so she may recover it. Thus, the correct result is that she recovers lost profits but not travel time. Now examine the distractors. The choice saying she may recover both fails because it ignores the Act's explicit bar on recovering for common injuries—the fact that both arose from the same nuisance does not erase the classification. The choice saying she recovers travel time but not lost profits is inverted: it treats lost profits as speculative, but the passage gives a concrete $25,000 figure, and it wrongly rewards the common injury. The choice saying she recovers nothing overlooks her business loss, which is a distinct, different-in-kind injury that grants standing and damages. Your study tip: when a nuisance harms a specific business, that lost profit is usually the different-in-kind injury—separate it from the public's generalized inconvenience.

Question 3

Ardent Fireworks operates a consumer-fireworks manufacturing plant under all required permits. The plant stores finished fireworks in a reinforced concrete magazine built to current safety codes. One night, despite a comprehensive safety program, a spontaneous chemical reaction—a phenomenon never previously documented in the industry and unpreventable by any known precaution—ignited a massive explosion. The blast and toxic smoke forced closure of a state highway for fourteen hours and evacuation of 300 nearby residents. The state incurred $500,000 in emergency-response and cleanup costs. The state has sued Ardent for public nuisance to recover those costs. The trial court has held, in a ruling not subject to dispute on appeal, that the explosion resulted from a non-negligent, unpreventable event and that the manufacture of consumer fireworks is not an abnormally dangerous activity.

The state supreme court's decision in Fazio v. Delmar Power states:

'An actor who creates a public nuisance is subject to liability for damages and abatement only when the interference with a public right results from conduct that is (i) intentional, in that the actor knows or should know that the interference is resulting from the conduct and nonetheless continues it; (ii) negligent; or (iii) an abnormally dangerous activity. A lawful and carefully conducted activity that nonetheless causes a substantial interference with a public right through no fault of the actor does not create liability for public nuisance.'

Which of the following is the best statement of the law governing the state's claim?

The state may not recover, because the interference was neither intended nor caused by negligence, and the manufacture of consumer fireworks was not an abnormally dangerous activity under the trial court's ruling. (correct answer)
The state may recover, because the magnitude of the interference—fourteen hours of highway closure and the evacuation of three hundred residents—made the interference unreasonable, and unreasonableness alone will support a public nuisance claim.
The state may recover, because the explosion arose from a spontaneous chemical reaction inherent in storing large quantities of explosive materials, so Ardent's activity was abnormally dangerous despite the absence of negligence.
The state may recover, because its emergency-response and cleanup costs were a direct and foreseeable consequence of Ardent's manufacturing operation, and the party whose activity causes a substantial interference with public safety must bear the resulting costs.

Explanation: When you see a public nuisance claim, the controlling question is almost always the fault standard — what mental state or conduct must the defendant have had to be liable. Here, the state supreme court's Fazio rule gives you a closed set of three triggers: intentional interference, negligent interference, or an abnormally dangerous activity. The trial court's unchallenged findings remove two of those triggers outright: Ardent was non-negligent and its activity was not abnormally dangerous. So the state's claim collapses unless the explosion was somehow "intentional" — but a spontaneous, unpreventable chemical reaction is the opposite of conduct the actor knows or should know is causing a nuisance. That is why the best statement of the law is that the state may not recover. The "magnitude of the interference" choice is a trap: unreasonableness of the harm may matter in some nuisance settings, but Fazio explicitly refuses to impose liability without fault, no matter how severe the interference. The "abnormally dangerous despite the absence of negligence" choice ignores the trial court's binding ruling to the contrary; you cannot relitigate that finding on appeal. Finally, the "direct and foreseeable consequence" choice sounds like policy, but foreseeability is not a substitute for the Fazio elements — otherwise every lawful business would become an insurer of its unavoidable accidents. Your takeaway: when a court's rule lists exhaustive conditions, match the facts to each condition. Don't let sympathy for the state's $500,000 loss override the stated law.

Question 4

Solvent Reclaim, Inc., operates a chemical-recycling facility in the Midtown district of Crestview. For two years, windborne odor emissions from the facility have been noticeable throughout a forty-block residential area and the four public parks within it. Medical authorities have linked the odor to increased reports of headache, nausea, and dizziness among the roughly 16,000 residents of the area—about 4 percent of Crestview's population; other parts of the city are unaffected. A state agency report has concluded that the emissions, although within permit limits, unreasonably interfere with the affected residents' comfort and with the public's use of the parks. Ninety residents, each alleging that the odor has caused physical discomfort and has driven them from the parks, sue Solvent Reclaim in one action for an injunction, alleging a public nuisance. Solvent Reclaim moves to dismiss on the ground that the alleged interference is not with a right common to the general public, because only 4 percent of the city's population is affected and the nuisance does not extend throughout the city.

The State Nuisance Code provides:

'A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. A right common to the general public is affected when conduct significantly impairs the public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience, or interferes with the use of public streets, parks, or other public facilities. It is not necessary that the entire community be affected; it is sufficient that a substantial number of persons are affected or that conduct impairs the use of public facilities.'

Which of the following is the best response to Solvent Reclaim's motion?

Grant the motion, because the affected residents are only 4 percent of the city's population, and an interference that does not affect the public at large is not a public nuisance.
Grant the motion, because the residents' complaints of headache, nausea, and dizziness are harms to personal comfort and health, not interferences with a right to use facilities common to the public at large.
Deny the motion, because the residents are a substantial number of persons and the emissions impair the use of the public parks, so a right common to the general public is affected even though the entire community is not. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, but only because the emissions impair the use of the public parks; an interference confined to residents' personal comfort and health, without damage to public facilities, cannot be a public nuisance.

Explanation: When you see a public nuisance question, the core issue is whether the interference affects a "right common to the general public"—but that phrase is broader than you might think. The statute here explicitly defines it: significant impairment of public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience, or interference with public facilities, and it clarifies that the entire community need not be affected; a substantial number of persons suffices. The correct response is to deny the motion. The 16,000 affected residents—though only 4 percent of Crestview—constitute a substantial number under the statute. Moreover, the emissions drive residents from public parks, directly interfering with their use of public facilities. Either ground alone would be enough, but together they clearly establish a right common to the general public. The motion's argument that the nuisance must extend throughout the city is exactly what the statute rejects. Now the wrong answers. The choice saying "grant the motion, because the affected residents are only 4 percent" misreads the statute—it explicitly says a substantial number is enough, not the entire community. The choice saying "grant because complaints are personal comfort and health, not use of facilities" ignores that the statute lists "comfort" and "public health" as protected rights, so personal discomfort can be a public nuisance if it affects a substantial number. The final wrong choice, "deny only because of park impairment," wrongly suggests personal comfort alone could never suffice—but the statute says otherwise, and here both grounds exist. Your study tip: On the bar exam, always read the statutory definition carefully. A "public nuisance" does not require affecting everyone—just a substantial number or public facilities. Don't let an answer choice trap you into thinking "public" means "the entire city."

Question 5

A paper mill has been discharging bleach into a river that runs through a public recreation area. The river is used by the public for fishing and swimming, and the state has posted signs warning that the water is unsafe. Maya owns a riverside café and rents canoes to the public. Because of the contamination, her customers have disappeared and she has lost most of her income. Maya asks a lawyer whether she can sue the mill to stop the discharge and recover her lost income.

Which additional fact, if true, would be most important in determining whether Maya can bring an action?

The mill's discharge is the subject of a separate administrative enforcement proceeding brought by the state, and the mill is cooperating with that proceeding.
Maya knew about the contamination before she opened the café and chose to locate there anyway.
Maya has complained to the state environmental agency, but the agency has not taken action.
Maya's business losses are not suffered by members of the public who fish or swim in the river for recreation. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a private citizen trying to sue over pollution of a public resource, your first question should be: does she have standing? This is a public-nuisance question at heart. The contamination harms the public's right to fish and swim. A private plaintiff may enjoin a public nuisance and recover damages only if she suffers a special injury — harm different in kind, not merely different in degree, from what the public suffers. The fact that Maya's business losses are not suffered by members of the public who fish or swim is the linchpin. Her economic loss is distinct in kind from the recreational harm to the public; it gives her standing to bring her own action. If her losses were identical to the public's, only the state could sue to vindicate the public right. Now the other facts. The state's administrative enforcement proceeding against the mill doesn't bar Maya's common-law suit; primary jurisdiction might cause a court to defer or stay, but it is not decisive on whether she has an injury. Maya's knowledge of the contamination before opening the café is the "coming to the nuisance" defense — it can influence whether an injunction is equitable, especially if she knowingly located there, but it doesn't strip her of standing to sue for a nuisance that injures her business. And complaining to the state environmental agency without agency action may show futility of administrative relief, but it neither creates nor destroys her standing; she can still bring tort claims in court. Study tip: When you see a private lawsuit over a public harm, always test "special injury" — ask whether the plaintiff's harm differs in kind from the public's. That is the classic gatekeeper in public-nuisance suits; remember: different kind, not just degree.

Question 6

A company stores large quantities of fireworks in a warehouse in a densely populated neighborhood, across the street from a public school and a public market. The city fire marshal has concluded that a fire in the warehouse could cause an explosion that would threaten the surrounding area. No fire or explosion has occurred. The city wants to sue the company to close the warehouse. The warehouse is on private property, and the city owns no nearby land.

Which issue is most central to the city's ability to maintain the action?

Whether the storage of fireworks is an abnormally dangerous activity for which the company would be strictly liable to anyone injured.
Whether the fireworks would substantially interfere with neighboring landowners' use and enjoyment of their property.
Whether the storage of fireworks threatens the public's health and safety, even though the city owns no affected property. (correct answer)
Whether the city can show that the warehouse has already caused neighboring property values to decline.

Explanation: This question tests the distinction between public nuisance and private nuisance, and the government's standing to seek an abatement. When a government sues to enjoin a hazard on private land, the central question is whether the activity threatens public rights—health, safety, or common resources—not whether the government owns neighboring property. Here, the fire marshal's finding that a fire could cause an explosion threatening schools, homes, and a market directly implicates public safety. The city can maintain a public-nuisance action to close the warehouse because public nuisance protects common rights, and a government entity may sue even without owning affected land. The central issue is therefore whether the storage of fireworks threatens the public's health and safety despite the city owning no affected property. The abnormally dangerous activity choice is a trap: strict liability is a standard for compensating injured victims after harm, but the city seeks prospective relief to prevent harm, and no injury has occurred. The substantial interference with neighboring landowners' use and enjoyment choice describes private nuisance, which protects individual property interests; the city is not suing as a neighboring landowner. The already caused neighboring property values to decline choice is also wrong—an actual decline is unnecessary to show a threatened public nuisance, especially when the city seeks an injunction rather than damages. Strategy: for nuisance questions, first ask who is suing and what right is invaded. Government + public health/safety = public nuisance; private owner + land use = private nuisance.

Question 7

A landfill has slowly leaked chemical waste into groundwater that supplies a public water district serving 40,000 people. The leak was discovered ten years ago, but the landfill has continued to operate and the leak has continued. The water district recently sued the landfill to stop the leak and recover the cost of filtering the water. The landfill argues that the lawsuit is untimely because the contamination began more than the limitations period before suit.

Which legal issue is most directly raised by the landfill's argument?

Whether the water district has standing to sue for harm to groundwater it does not own.
Whether the continuing leak is a new public nuisance each day rather than a single permanent nuisance. (correct answer)
Whether the landfill's operation is an abnormally dangerous activity that would support strict liability for the contamination.
Whether the contamination substantially interferes with the water district's customers' use and enjoyment of their homes.

Explanation: Whenever you see a statute-of-limitations defense in a nuisance case, ask whether the harm is permanent (one injury, claim accrues at discovery) or continuing (new injury each day, claim accrues for each day within the limitations period). The landfill's argument—that the suit is untimely because contamination began long ago—directly raises this distinction. The correct answer is that the continuing leak is a new public nuisance each day rather than a single permanent nuisance. If the leak is continuing, each day's contamination is a separate wrong, so the water district can sue for ongoing harm even if the original contamination is old. That defeats the landfill's timeliness defense. The wrong answers miss the issue. Standing to sue for groundwater not owned is irrelevant because the water district is suing to stop a leak and recover cleanup costs—it has standing as a public water supplier, and the landfill didn't raise standing. Whether the operation is an abnormally dangerous activity goes to strict liability, not the timing of the claim. Substantial interference with customers' use and enjoyment addresses the merits of the nuisance, not whether the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. These are traps that shift focus from the procedural defense to the substantive elements. For the bar exam, when a defendant argues untimeliness in a nuisance case, immediately check if the harm is continuing or permanent. A permanent nuisance triggers the limitations clock once; a continuing nuisance resets it daily, letting you sue for recent harm. That pattern appears often—memorize it.

Question 8

Marlo lives two miles downstream from Perma-Dye, a textile plant that for three years has discharged chemical waste into the Oconee River in violation of its state permit. The discharge has turned the river orange, killed most of the fish, and produced a sulfur smell throughout the river valley. The state environmental agency has formally declared the discharge a public nuisance but has taken no enforcement action. Many valley residents have complained of burning eyes, coughing, and a bad taste in their mouths when near the river. Marlo experiences the same eye and throat irritation, but because she has pre-existing asthma her symptoms are far more severe: she has been hospitalized three times, incurred $40,000 in medical expenses, and missed two months of work as a pharmacy clerk because of the hospitalizations. No other resident has required medical treatment. Marlo sues Perma-Dye in her own name, seeking an injunction, her medical expenses, and her lost wages, alleging a public nuisance. Perma-Dye has moved for summary judgment on the ground that Marlo has not suffered a special injury.

Section 3 of the State Public Nuisance Act provides: '3(a) The Attorney General may bring an action to enjoin or abate a public nuisance and to recover damages on behalf of the state. 3(b) A private person may bring an action to enjoin or abate a public nuisance only if the person has suffered special injury. 3(c) For purposes of this Act, special injury means harm to the person or property of the private person that is different in kind from the harm suffered by the general public. Harm that differs from the public harm only in degree, intensity, frequency, or duration is not special injury. Consequential economic losses do not change the character of the underlying harm. 3(d) A private person who proves special injury may recover damages for that injury and, if the nuisance is ongoing, an injunction.'

Which of the following is the best statement of how the court should rule on Perma-Dye's motion?

Deny the motion, because Marlo's three hospitalizations and $40,000 in medical expenses are physical harms distinct in kind from the public's transient eye and throat irritation, and special injury may be shown by personal injury alone.
Grant the motion, because Marlo's underlying harm—impaired health and physical comfort—is the same in kind as the harm the general public suffers, and her greater severity, medical costs, and lost wages make it different only in degree. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because Marlo has suffered an invasion of her personal health and her earning capacity that is substantially greater in degree and consequence than the discomfort experienced by other residents.
Grant the motion, because Section 3(a) makes the Attorney General's enforcement authority exclusive, so a private person lacks standing to sue for a public nuisance regardless of any personal injury.

Explanation: This question tests the statutory definition of "special injury" in a public nuisance action. When a statute defines a term, apply that definition strictly—don't let sympathetic facts override the text. The key is the distinction between harm that differs in "kind" (qualitative) versus only in "degree" (quantitative). The court should grant the motion. The general public suffers impaired health and physical comfort: burning eyes, coughing, bad taste. Marlo suffers the same underlying harm—impaired health and physical comfort—just far more severely due to asthma. The statute explicitly states that harm differing only in degree, intensity, frequency, or duration is not special injury. Her hospitalizations, medical expenses, and lost wages are consequences of that same harm, and Section 3(c) says consequential economic losses do not change the character of the underlying harm. No special injury exists, so summary judgment is proper. The wrong answers each misapply the statute. The choice claiming her hospitalizations and medical expenses are "physical harms distinct in kind" fails because the underlying harm is the same type—just worse. The choice arguing her harm is "substantially greater in degree" fails because the statute rejects degree-based distinctions and relies on lost wages (a consequential economic loss). The choice claiming the Attorney General's authority is exclusive misreads Section 3(b), which explicitly allows private suits when special injury is proven. Study tip: When a statute defines a term, treat it as a checklist. Ask: is the plaintiff's harm qualitatively different from the public's, or merely quantitatively worse? If it's just worse—even with huge costs—it's not special injury.

Question 9

A racetrack has held nighttime races for the past two years. The noise from the races is audible for several miles, and it has made a public campground and an outdoor amphitheater next to the track nearly unusable; attendance at both has fallen by more than half. Neighboring homeowners also say the noise wakes them at night. The state attorney general has received complaints from the campground operator and the homeowners and wants to bring an action to stop the nighttime racing.

Which legal theory is most directly at the center of the attorney general's action?

Public nuisance, because the noise interferes with the public's use and enjoyment of the campground and amphitheater. (correct answer)
Private nuisance, because the noise substantially interferes with the neighboring homeowners' use and enjoyment of their property.
Trespass, because the sound waves from the racetrack physically invade the campground and the homeowners' homes.
Strict liability, because operating a racetrack at night creates an abnormally dangerous risk to the surrounding community.

Explanation: When you see a state attorney general seeking an injunction, think public nuisance—that's the government's tool to protect the common rights of the community, not just one neighbor. Here, the key is that the noise has made a public campground and outdoor amphitheater nearly unusable, harming everyone who uses those public spaces. That directly interferes with the public's right to use and enjoy public resources, which is the essence of a public nuisance. The homeowners' complaints are also relevant, but the attorney general's action centers on the broader public harm, not individual property rights. Private nuisance is wrong because it requires a substantial and unreasonable interference with a specific person's use and enjoyment of their own land—that would be the homeowners' claim, not the attorney general's. Trespass fails because sound waves are not a physical invasion of property; trespass requires an tangible object entering land. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities does not apply here—racing at night is risky but not the kind of ultrahazardous activity (like blasting or storing explosives) that triggers strict liability; the harm is nuisance, not an accident. Your strategy: when a government official brings the action, immediately ask whether the harm affects the public at large versus a few individuals. Public nuisance protects the "common right," like access to parks, waterways, or air. Private nuisance protects a single owner's quiet enjoyment. Memorize the classic examples—loud noise near a school or campground is public; noise next to one house is private. Then, eliminate trespass and strict liability by checking for physical invasion or abnormal danger—they rarely fit noise cases.

Question 10

Sixteen years ago, Bayview Rendering built a plant adjacent to the Harbor View subdivision. Since then, the plant's uncovered wastewater lagoons have emitted a nauseating odor that constantly permeates the subdivision and the public park next to it. Uncontested evidence shows that installing floating covers on the lagoons would completely eliminate the odor at a cost of $4 million; Bayview's annual gross revenue is $300 million. The state has not sued. Twelve subdivision residents have filed a public nuisance action against Bayview seeking damages for the past three years of lost use and enjoyment of their properties and an injunction requiring the covers to be installed. Bayview has moved to dismiss, arguing that the nuisance is permanent and that the residents' claim accrued when the odor began sixteen years ago, making it time-barred under the state's three-year limitations period. Bayview concedes, solely for purposes of this motion, that the residents can establish special injury. The controlling decision is Jenerett v. Iron City Works, in which the state supreme court held:

'A nuisance is permanent when the harm it causes is not reasonably abatable, so that the injury is reasonably certain to continue indefinitely; such a nuisance creates a single cause of action that accrues when the nuisance is first created. A nuisance is continuing when the defendant could reasonably abate the harm, even at substantial cost; each day's maintenance of a continuing nuisance creates a new cause of action, and the plaintiff may recover damages for harm suffered within the limitations period and may obtain an injunction requiring abatement. A nuisance is not rendered permanent merely because the defendant declines to spend the money required for abatement, unless the cost is so disproportionate to the defendant's resources and the harm prevented that no reasonable defendant would undertake it.'

Which of the following is the correct disposition of Bayview's motion?

Grant the motion, because the odor has persisted without abatement for sixteen years, making its continuation reasonably certain and the nuisance permanent as a matter of law.
Grant the motion, because the residents' claim is for lost use and enjoyment of property, a harm that accrued when the odor first reduced the usefulness of their properties, and that claim became time-barred three years later.
Deny the motion in part, because the nuisance is permanent for damages purposes but the ongoing odor supports prospective injunctive relief, so the damages claim is barred and only the injunction claim survives.
Deny the motion, because the nuisance is continuing: the covers would fully abate the odor at a cost not disproportionate to Bayview's resources, so the residents may recover damages for the past three years and may seek an injunction. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you see a nuisance claim with a statute-of-limitations defense, the pivotal question is whether the harm is permanent (one claim accrues at creation) or continuing (each day creates a new claim). Under Jenerett, abatability controls—not how long the odor has lingered. Here, floating covers would completely eliminate the odor for $4 million, a tiny fraction of Bayview’s $300 million annual revenue. That cost is not disproportionate, so the nuisance is reasonably abatable and therefore continuing. The residents may sue for damages within the three-year window and seek an injunction. The choice saying "deny the motion" because the nuisance is continuing is correct. Now the traps. The answer claiming the nuisance is permanent merely because the odor has persisted for sixteen years ignores Jenerett's rule that a defendant's refusal to spend money does not make harm permanent unless the cost is so disproportionate no reasonable defendant would pay it. The answer that the claim accrued when the odor first reduced property usefulness misapplies the permanent-nuisance accrual rule—it fails to recognize that a continuing nuisance creates fresh claims daily. And the answer splitting the baby—permanent for damages but allowing an injunction—misreads the doctrine: if the harm is reasonably abatable, it is continuing for both damages and injunctive relief; if permanent, both claims would be barred. Study tip: Ask "Can the defendant fix it at a reasonable cost?" If yes, it's continuing—so limitations won't bar recent damages, and injunctions remain available.

Question 11

A construction company widening a county highway has piled dirt and construction debris on a public road that is the only access to a gated subdivision. The county owns the road, but under a maintenance agreement the subdivision homeowners' association maintains it, and the road ends at the subdivision gate, so only the subdivision's residents and their guests normally use it. The piles have made the road impassable for three weeks, forcing residents to walk nearly a mile to reach their parked cars. The residents want to sue the company to remove the piles.

Which legal theory is most clearly raised by the residents' claim?

Interference with an easement, because the residents have a private right to use the road under the maintenance agreement.
Private nuisance, because the obstruction interferes with the residents' use and enjoyment of their subdivision.
Public nuisance, because the company has obstructed a public road used by the community. (correct answer)
Trespass, because the company placed dirt and debris on land owned by the county.

Explanation: When you see a torts question about a road obstruction, your first instinct should be to classify the right being interfered with: is it a public right (like using a public highway) or a private right (like quiet enjoyment of one's own land)? Here, the county owns the road, making it a public road, even though it ends at a gate and residents are the primary users. By piling dirt and debris for three weeks, the company has blocked a public thoroughfare, impairing the public's right to travel—the essence of a public nuisance. The residents' suit to remove the piles is a classic remedy for that tort. The "interference with an easement" option is a trap: the residents hold no easement in the road. The maintenance agreement merely assigns upkeep duties to the homeowners' association; it does not create a private property right. Their right to use the road stems from its public status, not a private grant. The "private nuisance" option fails because that tort requires interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their own land. The obstruction sits on the county's road, not on the residents' lots, and the harm—loss of access—is a public harm, not a distinct private harm to their land itself. The "trespass" option is also wrong: trespass requires an unauthorized physical invasion of land possessed by the plaintiff. The residents do not possess the county road; the county does, so that claim belongs to the county, not to the residents. Remember this bar-exam pattern: public nuisance protects communal rights (like roads and air), while private nuisance protects individual land use. If the obstruction is on a public way, lean toward public nuisance, even if the plaintiff group is small.

Question 12

A landlord owns an apartment building next to a public elementary school. For more than a year, police have repeatedly notified the landlord that tenants are selling drugs and fighting in the building's common areas. The landlord has refused to evict the tenants or take any steps to stop the activity. The city attorney wants to sue the landlord to close the building. The landlord argues that the tenants' misconduct, not the landlord's, caused any harm.

Which legal issue is most central to the city's claim against the landlord?

Whether the landlord's failure to evict the tenants was negligent because the misconduct was foreseeable.
Whether the landlord's knowing failure to control the property is an unreasonable interference with the public's health and safety. (correct answer)
Whether the tenants' drug sales and fighting substantially interfere with neighboring owners' use and enjoyment of their land.
Whether the tenants' activity is a criminal nuisance that must be addressed through criminal prosecution rather than a civil action.

Explanation: Whenever you see a government entity trying to shut down property because of ongoing illegal activity, think public nuisance: a substantial and unreasonable interference with a public right—health, safety, peace, or convenience. The city's claim is not about proving the landlord personally sold drugs; it's about the landlord's knowing failure to exercise control over the property after repeated police notifications. The correct answer—whether the landlord's knowing failure to control the property is an unreasonable interference with the public's health and safety—captures that. A landowner who knows of harmful conditions and has power to correct them may be liable for maintaining a public nuisance. The landlord's refusal to evict or take action makes the property a continuing source of danger. The negligence choice misses the mark: foreseeability is part of negligence, but the central public-nuisance issue is unreasonable interference with public rights, not duty and breach in tort. The neighbors' use-and-enjoyment choice describes private nuisance, which protects individual property interests, whereas the city is enforcing public rights. The criminal-prosecution choice wrongly assumes criminal and civil remedies are mutually exclusive; public nuisance can be redressed civilly through injunction or abatement, even if tenants also face criminal charges. Study tip: distinguish public nuisance (interference with public rights, enforced by government) from private nuisance (interference with another's use and enjoyment of land). And remember landlords with knowledge and control can be liable for nuisances created by tenants.