Cooper v. Randall
Citations
- 53 Ill. 24
Syllabus
<p>1. Nuisance—of the use of one’s own property, as between adjacent proprietors. In an action on the case, it appeared the defendant had erected and was operating a flouring mill upon a lot adjacent to the plaintiff’s dwelling house, whereby, as plaintiff claimed, large quantities of chaff, dust, smut and dirt were thrown into and upon his house, rendering it uncomfortable as a habitation: Held,, the plaintiff had a right of action, and was entitled, to damages in proportion to the degree of the injury.</p> <p>2. In such case, the right of action does not depend upon the degree of the injury. If it exist at all, it exists as well for a slight as for a great injury.</p> <p>3. Still the injury must be something more than a fanciful inconvenience, a question of mere delicacy or fastidiousness, arising from elegant and dainty habits of life; it must be a clear and plain interference with ordinary comforts or enjoyments.</p> <p>4. Even if a business be lawful in itself, and is carried on with reasonable diligence to prevent it becoming an injury to others, still the proprietor will be held responsible in damages to one who does receive injury therefrom, as, in rendering his dwelling uncomfortable as a habitation.</p> <p>5. Evidence—where vindictive damages arre dawned. So, it would be incompetent in such case for the defendant to prove that the machinery used in the business was good, and the business was properly managed, except where the plaintiff claimed vindictive damages, on the ground of gross carelessness or wanton injury. Such evidence could not be received to show defendant was not liable to damages at all.</p> <p>6. Same—as to use of other property of the plaintiff. Nor would it be competent in such case, where the action was for an injury to a particular house of the plaintiff, for the defendant to prove that another house in the same neighborhood, owned and rented by the plaintiff, was a disreputable house. Such evidence would be wholly foreign to the issue.
Judges: Lawrence
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Belmar Drive-In Theatre Co. v. Illinois State Toll Highway CommissionIllinois Supreme Court· 1966-05-23· cited 53×
- Laflin & Rand Powder Co. v. TearneyIllinois Supreme Court· 1890-01-21· cited 43×
- Cooper v. RandallIllinois Supreme Court· 1871-09-15· cited 33×
- Menolascino v. Superior Felt & Bedding Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1942-03-18· cited 22×
- Cork v. BlossomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1894-11-01· cited 17×
- Feder v. Perry Coal Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1935-03-04· cited 15×
- Gardner v. International Shoe Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1943-06-01· cited 10×
- Chicago, Wilmington & Vermillion Coal Co. v. GlassAppellate Court of Illinois· 1889-12-16· cited 6×
- Belvidere Gaslight & Fuel Co. v. JacksonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-04-11· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.