1. If Eden Roc could prove that the addition was completely out of spite, would this additional fact affect the court’s decision?

2. Why is the historical ancient lights doctrine unworkable in modern commercial life?

3. The court also notes that individuals are free to build as high as or in any way that they want, provided that doing so does not violate any laws, restrictions, or regulations. If the Fontainebleau was in violation of any code or regulation, would the outcome of the case have been different? Why or why not? 

The Fontainebleau Hotel was in the process of constructing a 14-story addition to its resort hotel. After completion of eight stories, one of Fontainebleau’s competitors, the Eden Roc Hotel, which owned adjoining property to the Fontainebleau, filed suit asking a court to issue an order prohibiting further construction of the addition. Eden Roc alleged that in the winter months, beginning at 2 o’clock in the afternoon and continuing until sunset, the shadow caused by the new addition would extend over Eden Roc’s resort cabanas, main swimming pool, and several designated sunbathing areas. Eden Roc argued that this interference with sunlight and air violated its air rights and was causing Eden Roc to lose profits because its resort was now less desirable for guests wishing to use the pool facilities. Eden Roc also alleged that the construction plan was based on ill will between the owners of the resorts.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Fontainebleau on the basis of the general property law rule that property owners may use their property in any reasonable and lawful manner. The court noted that landowners are not obliged to use their property in a way that would prevent injury to a neighbor. The court also pointed out that modern American courts have consistently rejected the historical English law doctrine of “ancient lights,” which provides a right to the free flow of light and air from adjoining land, as unworkable in current commercial life. Therefore, the court held that there is no legal right to the flow of air or light and that there is no cause of action so long as the structure serves a legitimately useful purpose. 

“[T]here . . . [is] no legal right to the free flow of light and air from the adjoining land, it is universally held that where a structure serves a useful and beneficial purpose, it does not give rise to a cause of action . . . , even though it causes injury to another by cutting off the light and air and interfering with the view that would otherwise be available over adjoining land in its natural state, regardless of the fact that the structure may have been erected partly for spite.”