[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Defendant’s property use is unreasonable under the circumstances; and
2. There is an appreciable, substantial, tangible injury resulting in actual, material, physical discomfort or interference with the enjoyment and value of private property rights of the Plaintiff.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Defendant’s property use is unreasonable under the circumstances; and
2. There is an appreciable, substantial, tangible injury resulting in actual, material, physical discomfort or interference with the enjoyment and value of private property rights of the Plaintiff.

“A private nuisance is one that violates only private rights and produces damages to but one or more persons rather than to the public generally.” Nitram Chems., Inc. v. Parker, 200 So. 2d 220, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Beckman v. Marshall, 85 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 1956).

First District: Saadeh v. Stanton Rowing Found., Inc., 912 So. 2d 28, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Roebuck v. Sills, 306 So. 3d 374, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020.

Second District: Nitram Chems., Inc. v. Parker, 200 So. 2d 220, 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Bechhold v. Mariner Props., Inc., 576 So. 2d 921, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Third District:. Surfside v. Cty. Line Land Co., 340 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Fifth District: HagertySmith, LLC v. Gerlander, 236 So. 3d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Southern District: Karpel v. Knauf Gips KG, Civil Action No. 21-24168-Civ-Scola, 2022 WL 4366946 at *16 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 20, 2022).

Middle District: Jameson Land Co., LLC v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-00409-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 7206122, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2016).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Private Nuisance

(1) R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(g), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) If the resulting injury to real estate is permanent, the measure of damages is the “depreciation in its value.” Where the injury is remediable, the measure is the “depreciation of the rental or usable value of the property” during the period of injury. Nitram Chems., Inc. v. Parker, 200 So. 2d 220, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).

(4) The test for whether a condition is a “nuisance” is its effect on ordinary persons with a “reasonable disposition in ordinary health and possessing the average and normal sensibilities.”Beckman v. Marshall, 85 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla. 1956).

(5) A lawful business can still be considered a nuisance if it is conducted in an unreasonable manner that deprives neighbors of the free use or enjoyment of their property. Barfield Instrument Corp. v. Sea View Industries, Inc., 102 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).

(6) “Unlawful use is not essential to the existence of an actionable nuisance.” Barfield Instrument Corp. v. Sea View Indus., Inc., 102 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).

(7) Private nuisanceis actionable where only “one or a few people are impacted.” Brashevitzky v. Covanta Dade Renewable Energy, LLC, No. 23-20861-CIV, 2024 WL 21589, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2024).

(8) No private nuisance action can be maintained where the “plaintiff owns the property which causes the nuisance.” Appleby v. Knauf Gips KG, No. 22-CIV-61411-RAR, 2023 WL 3844770, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2023).

(9) Where the alleged nuisance does not affect plaintiff’s land use and enjoyment, no nuisance has occurred. Sanders v. Henry Cty., 484 F. App’x 395, 399 (11th Cir. 2012).

[/MM_Access_Decision]