Griffin v. Northridge
67 Cal. App. 2d 69, 1944 Cal. App. LEXIS 1273, 153 P.2d 800 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A series of malicious and intentional acts that, when taken together, interfere with a person's comfortable enjoyment of their home can constitute an actionable nuisance, even if no single act would be sufficient on its own.
Facts:
- In 1940, plaintiffs, the Griffins, purchased a residential lot and built a home next to the property of defendants, the Northridges.
- Immediately after the Griffins moved in, the Northridges began a campaign of harassment.
- Mrs. Northridge trespassed on the Griffins' property to destroy their flowers.
- The Northridges moved their garbage can directly under the Griffins' dining room window, hung noisy tin can tops along the property line, and intentionally cast paint onto the Griffins' walls and windows.
- Mrs. Northridge frequently approached the property line to shout insults and derogatory names at Mrs. Griffin.
- The Northridges planted fast-growing eucalyptus trees and erected a large, ugly board fence on a retaining wall, which obstructed the Griffins' view, light, and air.
- When the Griffins contracted to sell their home, the Northridges intentionally dissuaded the buyer, causing the sale to fall through.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (the Griffins) sued defendants (the Northridges) in a trial court, alleging their conduct constituted a nuisance and initially seeking both an abatement and damages.
- Prior to trial, the Griffins sold their home and thereafter pursued only their claim for monetary damages.
- The trial court found in favor of the Griffins and awarded them $1,000 in damages.
- The Northridges (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a series of malicious and annoying acts by a neighbor, which individually might be minor or lawful, collectively constitute an actionable nuisance for which monetary damages can be awarded?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, P. J.
Yes. A series of malicious acts can collectively constitute an actionable nuisance. The court reasoned that while no single act alone might justify a finding of nuisance, the 'sum total of all of defendants' behavior' demonstrated a malicious intent to harass the Griffins and interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of their home. The court emphasized that a home is a 'castle' and that he who maliciously aims to destroy its peace robs the inhabitants of immeasurable riches. Damages for a nuisance are not limited to financial losses but can compensate for annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience. The court dismissed the argument that the fence was not a nuisance because it was under ten feet, stating that a structure can be a nuisance if it is constructed with malicious intent and its usefulness to the owner is 'subordinate and incidental' to its purpose of annoying a neighbor.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the tort of nuisance is not limited to physical invasions like smoke or noise but can encompass a pattern of malicious conduct intended to disturb a neighbor's peace. It affirms the principle that a court may look at the cumulative effect of a defendant's actions and their underlying motive (malice) to find a nuisance. This broadens the application of nuisance law in disputes between neighbors, allowing recovery for intangible harms like annoyance and discomfort caused by a course of deliberate harassment, even if some of the defendant's individual acts were otherwise lawful.
Unlock the full brief for Griffin v. Northridge