Sturges v. Bridgman

Nuisance, coming to the nuisance, and reciprocal conflicts over incompatible land uses.

A confectioner had long used noisy mortars in his kitchen. A physician later built a consulting room at the end of his garden near the kitchen and complained that the noise interfered with medical practice.

The court granted relief to the physician and rejected the argument that long use alone had legalized the nuisance against the newly affected use.

The court emphasized that nuisance depends on locality and interference with reasonable enjoyment of land. Prior activity did not automatically create a right to impose noise on later neighboring uses unless an easement had been acquired.

1. How does the rule allocate entitlements, precaution, information, or bargaining power?
2. Would a different remedy change transaction, error, or enforcement costs?