Defendant Atlantic Cement Company operated a large cement plant that emitted considerable amounts of dirt and smoke into the air. These emissions, combined with vibrations from the plant, caused damage to the plaintiffs, Boomer and other owners of property located close to the plant. The plaintiffs brought a nuisance action against the defendant, seeking an injunction. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants; it found a nuisance but denied plaintiffs the injunction they sought. The plaintiffs appealed to the intermediate appellate court, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs then appealed to the state's highest appellate court.
1. To demonstrate your ability to follow legal reasoning, in your own words, run down the court's reasoning for its decision.
Clue: Do not be too narrow here. You want to identify (1) why the court granted damages to the plaintiff and (2) why the court did not order an injunction.
2. The court argued that granting the plaintiff monetary damages should promote more environmentally friendly practices on the part of businesses, because they would develop technologies to avoid having to pay damages. What assumption did the court make in this reasoning?
Clue: Reread the court's reasoning. This assumption is related to the quantitative relationship between the damages imposed on businesses for polluting and the economic benefits of polluting for businesses.