In the case of Roberta Smith’s argument against Patrick Johnson’s use of “Hungry Hungry Ladybugs”, or HHLs, Mrs. Smith is likely to be granted both an injunction and damages by the Court. The evidence brought forth makes it a clear case of nuisance under the common law of New Columbia, which also disputes all of Mr. Johnson’s counter-arguments. Barring unforeseen developments due to new data, Mrs. Smith’s claim falls in line with similar cases that have been granted varying levels of damages and injunctions. Meadowbrook Swim Club lends an inferred definition of a nuisance to be an act that is unreasonable, with substantial effect, that interferes with the normal use and enjoyment of property. It is also worth noting that a nuisance need not be purposefully disruptive. Mr. Johnson’s HHLs have clearly caused unreasonable and substantial damage to Mrs. Smiths farm, particularly due to …show more content…
This has interfered with the normal use and enjoyment of Mrs. Smith’s property to the point that the strawberry patch is no longer attracting customers, and the farm itself is difficult to manage in the presence of the HHLs. Therefore, despite Mr. Johnson’s seemingly innocent intentions, his release of HHLs as a form of pest control will be considered a nuisance in the eyes of the Court. Mr. Johnson makes several claims to dispute the notion that Mrs. Smith’s experience should be considered a nuisance under the common law of New Columbia. Firstly, he cites Ducktown Sulphur, a case in which a nuisance was ruled, to be very different from his use of HHLs. While the situations differ inherently, the underlying experiences in each are remarkably similar. Both plaintiffs are suffering the loss of productive land due to an outside company. Therefore, the “fact pattern” presented in each lead them both to constitute a nuisance. Next, Mr. Johnson argues that Roberta has been “unduly sensitive” in bringing this matter before