Misty D. McCartney
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Case Brief
Public Law
September 10, 2015

Heading
Boomer et al v. Atlantic Cement Company, Inc. 26 N.Y.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 870, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312, (1970) N.Y. Court of Appeals
Statement of Facts
Plaintiffs filed a nuisance claim against the neighboring Atlantic Cement Company because the smoke, dirt and vibrations from plant and nearby quarry caused well documented property damage to their property. The plant is worth an estimated $45 million dollars and has over 300 employees. The past, present and future damages to their property was found to be an equitable single recovery in the amount of $185,000 to all plaintiffs.
Procedural History
The Lower court found that there was a nuisance and awarded temporary damages, but the injunction was …show more content…
Holding or Rule
A court should not give an injunction when there is a large disparity in economic consequences of the nuisance and the injunction. The court recognized that following the rule “literally” would be to close the plant down.
Reasoning
Proper control of air pollution is a problem in which solutions depend on technical research and expensive. The court reasoned it should not try to solve broad public objectives through private litigation.
The reason for the denial of the injunction is because of the large disparity in economic consequences of the nuisance and an injunction. The alternative is to grant the injunction but delay the effect until a later date to require the Defendant to abate the nuisance, which within eighteen months is unlikely, the plant would just shut down. To avoid shut down the Court ultimately chose permanent damages to the Plaintiffs. Compensation for the “total economic loss” to the property present and future. Separate Opinions
Judge Matthew Jasen dissented, argued that the majority was “in effect, licensing a continuing