No, the racetrack is not creating a legal nuisance. Nuisance law is designed to protect the average person's enjoyment of their property. A drive-in movie theater is a 'hypersensitive' business because it needs a level of darkness that normal homes or businesses don't. The racetrack's lights wouldn't bother a regular neighbor. The law says you can't start an extra-sensitive business and then force your neighbors, who are doing something perfectly legal, to change their operations just to protect you.

Nope. The judges said that the light from the race track isn't a big enough problem to be illegal. They explained that light isn't usually harmful and that the movie theater is extra sensitive to light. Just because the theater is sensitive doesn't mean the race track has to change what it's doing.

No. The casting of light from the racetrack does not constitute an actionable nuisance because the harm is solely the result of the plaintiff's abnormally sensitive use of its property. A claim for private nuisance requires an interference with the use and enjoyment of land that is both substantial and unreasonable. The standard for determining reasonableness is the effect on a person of ordinary habits and sensibilities, not the effect on a uniquely delicate or hypersensitive use. The plaintiff's outdoor theater is an exceptionally delicate use, requiring more darkness than even that provided by a night sky. An otherwise lawful activity, such as illuminating a racetrack, does not become a nuisance merely because it harms a neighbor's hypersensitive enterprise. The court also rejected the plaintiff's trespass claim, holding that an intangible intrusion like light is properly analyzed under nuisance law, as classifying it as trespass would improperly create liability without any proof of actual damages.

No. The court held that the light from Portland Meadows' race track, which is equivalent to full moonlight, does not constitute a legal nuisance because it does not substantially and unreasonably interfere with the ordinary use of Amphitheaters, Inc.'s property. The court reasoned that light is not inherently harmful and that the plaintiff's operation of a drive-in theater is an abnormally sensitive use of land that does not warrant special legal protection from ordinary light interference.

Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot