Law 310 Case Study Simulaiton

This is to invite your urgent attention to the constant garage and debris that has been accumulating on this site space 222 of Knolls Lodge Mobile Park in Torrance, California 90501 since 2014. For 2 ½ years this home has been an eye sore and a violation of the rental agreement at Knolls Lodge Mobile Park. As a result, heaps of garage, broken parts of metal, broken toys, washer and dryer, extension cords running all over the place, dry plants, car that is leaking oil on jacks, dog feces that is considered unhealthy, provides unsafe conditions and serious health hazards for the community, surrounding neighbors. I am the neighbor next door space 221 that has complaint that this resident has blocked my back door with these same obstructions

The increased diffused surface run off may flow into a natural watercourse or even over landowner’s property as long as the increase in diffused surface water flow does not harm the neighboring watercourses or lands (Dellapenna 306). Also added to the natural flow rule is the good husbandry exception (Dellapenna 305). The good husbandry exception gained acceptance slower than the acceleration exception due to its grand nature (Dellapenna 307). The good husbandry rule permitted landowners to add quatinties of water to drain or repel from negihbors land as long as the quanties were considered “good husbandry” of the soil (Dellapenna 307). This exception created then need to define what was amount of diffused water run off was “reasonable” to use, which led into the creation of the reasonable use rule (Dellapenna 307).

§ 75.007. TRESPASSERS. (a) In this section, "trespasser" means a person who enters the land of another without any legal right, express or implied.

their barking dogs create. The town government can make it illegal to disturb the peace

To hold a landowner liable for physical harm to trespassing children, a plaintiff must prove that children, because of their youth, do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it. Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 599 P.2d 209 (Ariz. 1979). If a child, while realizing the danger of his or her conduct, disregards the risk out of the spirit of bravado or

Using the doctrine of attractive nuisance the Ohio Duty of Care owed to Trespasser Statute establishes liability of real property owners for injuries sustained by minor trespassers. . The purpose of the statute is to balance the property owner rights to enjoy their property and society’s interest in protecting children from harm by attractive nuisance. Bennett v. Stanley, 748 N.E.2d 41, (Ohio 2001). The Statute provides:

Was the boy a trespasser? If so, does this mean that the owner of the land did not owe the boy a duty of care?

The Ducktown farmers ethical and legal argument was based on the law of Nuisance. The Ducktown famers sued the copper companies because smoke hindered their ability to participate in the thriving economy created by the Ducktown’s mining company. The Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co. created a nuisance “by sending forth from it roast piles, smelters, and furnaces volumes of sulfur smoke, fumes and poisonous gases, thereby poisoning the air”, killing their crops, orchards, and timber and “shutting them off from the sunlight and rendering their homes unpleasant and unhealthy, ruining all their edged tools, killing their bees”. (48) The copper companies did not have an ethical argument as they

The Cajun Association for the Legalization of Marijuana (CALM) has a constitutional right to conduct their protest. However, the city council also has the right to place certain restrictions upon the protest in order to keep the general peace in the town. As in the 1989 case Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the government has a vested interest in regulating the noise levels in a city. As there have been numerous noise complaints made over the years by citizens living in the vicinity of CALM’s protests, it is within the rights of the city to draft an ordinance which controls noise created by public assemblies in the area.

Explore how and why events occurred, decisions were made, and actions were taken or not.

In order to violate Section 402, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant discharged a pollutant into navigable waters from a point source without a permit. Given that Mr. Bankfiend was an investment banker and had no knowledge or experience in running a hotel or a fishing outing business, it seems that he did not apply for a NPDES permit. Also, the given facts do not show that he had applied for such permit. So, it is assumed from these details that Mr. Bankfiend was

The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The primary purpose of the doctrine’s development was the protection of children whom it recognizes might lack a complete appreciation of the potential danger of some particular premises. The doctrine asserts that a landowner’s liability extends to child trespassers for injuries emanating from a hazardous object or condition on the land, which attracted curious children who could not appreciate the full danger posed by the object. For the doctrine of attractive nuisance to apply, the fulfillment of five conditions is a necessity. The first of these conditions is that the landowner must or should know that children trespass on the land containing the hazard. The second condition states the landowner should either be aware or have reason to know that the hazard poses an unreasonable possibility of injury to a child. The third condition is that because of the children’s young age; they are unable to appreciate fully the threat inherent in that structure. Another condition is that the burden of reduction or elimination of the risk and the utility of maintenance for that condition are slight as compared to the risk posed to the children. The final condition is that the landowner must not have exercised

4 Thus a trespass is said to be persistent so that when the performer frames the goal to take, there is a happenstance of a taking and a purpose to for all time deny adequate to fulfill the normal law necessity. The fiction was conceived in a circumstance where the respondent was unmindful of the asset's vicinity at the season of the taking. Be that as it may, one instantly asks why the same justification would not oblige conviction wherever the first taking was a trespass at common law, pre-empting the regular law necessity of act and aim in all cases aside from where the first taking was in accordance with a directly under the common law. The Riley choice has been censured by a hefty portion of England's driving legal advisers of the criminal law, 3 (1853) Dears. C.C. 149, 158. 4 (1853) Dears.

[R] The first is a trespasser. A trespasser is one who enters the land of another without the consent of the owner. The only duty a landowner owes a trespasser is to not willfully or wantonly injure the trespasser. Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 303 Mich.App. 1,4, 840 N.W.2d 401, 404 (2013). [R] The second status is a licensee. A licensee is a person, such as a social guest, that has the landowner’s permission to enter the land. Id. at 4, 840 N.W.2d at 404.The duty a landowner has to a licensee is to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers that the landowner is aware or should have awareness of, if the danger is not open or obvious. Id. at 5, 840 N.W. 2d at 404. “Social guests are licensees who assume the ordinary risks associated with their visit.” Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 592, 614 N.W.2d 88,91-92 (2000). [R]The last status of those entering the property of another is a business invitee. Because of the business context, the landowner has an additional duty that extends beyond that of the duty to a licensee. The landowner has an obligation to inspect the premises as to any dangers and, if

There are two main purposes of the attractive nuisance doctrine. First, the attractive nuisance doctrine acknowledges that children will trespass and may be injured while doing so. The doctrine considers this, and then “weighs” the “interest in protecting children” with its second purpose: to avoid an unreasonable burden on the property owner when ensuring their property is safe for trespassing children. Liability to an injured child, that was either too young to appreciate