Econ 4040 1st Edition Lecture 7 Outline of Last Lecture I Trump Tower II Prah vs Maret Outline of Current Lecture III Spur vs Webb IV Ploof vs Putnam Current Lecture Spur vs Webb Developer sued to permanently enjoin a cattle feedlot operation that was in close proximity to a residential development it was creating The feedlot owner counterclaimed for indemnification from the developer if it was enjoined from operation Synopsis of rule of law In the proper circumstances an owner of a lawful business that is enjoined from operating because his business is found to be a nuisance can seek indemnification from the individual successful in claiming the nuisance Facts Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911 Later the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built The Defendant Spur Industries Defendant developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956 The Plaintiff Del E Webb Development Co Plaintiff began development of an urban area near the feedlots Plaintiff filed a complaint in 1967 stating that the approximately 1 300 lots were unfit for residential development because of the feedlots proximity to the lots therefore the feedlots constituted a public nuisance The trial court permanently enjoined the defendant from operating the feedlots Issue Two issues were examined on appeal Where a business is being operated in a lawful manner may the operation be enjoined as a nuisance If the operation is enjoined as a nuisance may the developer who requested the enjoinment be required to indemnify the business owner Ploof vs Putnam Fact Summary To escape a storm Ploof tied his boat to Putnam s defendant s dock Defendant untied plaintiff s boat Plaintiff and his family were injured and the boat was destroyed These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor s lecture GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes not as a substitute Synopsis of Rule of Law Necessity will justify entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise have been trespass Facts Defendant owned a dock Defendant s servant was in charge of the dock when Plaintiff and his family were sailing A storm arose and Plaintiff was forced to tie his boat to Defendant s dock Defendant s servant untied Plaintiff s boat Plaintiff and his family were injured and the boat was destroyed Plaintiff sued in trespass claiming that it was Defendant s servant s duty to allow Plaintiff to tie his boat to Defendant s dock The trial court ruled for Plaintiff Defendant appealed Issue Is Defendant permitted to untie Plaintiff s boat when Plaintiff tied his boat to Defendant s dock out of necessity Allowing trespass for financial gains If the boat is valued for 50 and the use of the dock is charged for at 100 then a more efficient outcome could occur