Question

Suppose you are part of the legal counsel for the plaintiff in the following case: Bomber v. Particular Gypsum Co. Consider the following facts for the hypothetical case of Bomber et al. v. Particular Gypsum Co. Sections 38 and 39 are adjacent 100-acre parcels of land in the northwestern part of Clementine County. Section 38 is owned by the Particular Gypsum Co. and is the site of its main production plant. Section 39 has been subdivided into 100 one-acre lots, almost all of which contain owner-occupied residences. Plaintiff Bomber is one of a class of individual property owners in Section 39 and is seeking to enjoin Particular from emitting dust and other particulate matter whose airborne passage onto the property in Section 39 allegedly constitutes a nuisance. Expert testimony establishes that the losses to Section 39 property values resulting from Particular’s emissions are approximately $1,000 per acre. In turn, Particular offers unrebutted evidence that (1) it is not feasible to produce at all in the present location without causing an objectionable level of emissions and (2) relocation of the plant would result in a cost to it of $12,437,000.

Suppose there is a high possibility of technological advancements in preventing the emissions of particulate dust. How would that fact affect the choice between temporary versus permanent damages?

Which rules are cheaper for the courts to impose: damages or injunctions? Permanent or temporary? Explain.

Answer 1

Here is the response:

Particular Gypsum Co

Here is the question and the relevant answer:

Suppose there is a high possibility of technological advancements in preventing the emissions of particulate dust. How would that fact affect the choice between temporary versus permanent damages?

If there is high possibility of technological advancements in preventing emissions of particular dust, yes, Plaintiff Bomber and Gypsum Company can settle for temporary damage.

Permanent damage would not be a recommendation as the issue with respect to emission of particulate dust and can be stopped if and when technological advancements are implemented.

Which rules are cheaper for the courts to impose: damages or injunctions? Permanent or temporary? Explain.

An injunction is a special order by a court and is not involving payment of money while damages include payment of money.

For this case, a temporary damage order needs to be issued by the court to be paid to Plaintiff Bomber until emissions are stopped. This will be a cheaper option considering that shifting the plant is more cost expensive.

Hope you find the response useful and if so, please do up-vote. This will help me improvise the quality of the responses.