Wis JI-Civil 1932

To sustain a claim of nuisance in this case, (plaintiff) must prove the following four

elements:

First, a public nuisance exist(s)(ed).2 A public nuisance is a condition or activity which

unreasonably interfere(s)(ed) with the use of a public place or with the activities of an entire

community. In determining whether an interference was unreasonable, you should consider

[select or modify as applicable] (whether the conduct involves a significant interference

with the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort or the public

convenience) (whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance or administrative

regulation) (whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or

long-lasting effect, and, as the actor knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect

upon the public right.)3

Second, the interference resulted in harm to the plaintiff that was both (1) significant,

and (2) different from the harm suffered by other members of the public exercising the

common right that was the subject of interference.4 “Significant harm” means harm

involving more than a slight inconvenience or petty annoyance. When the interference

involves personal discomfort or annoyance, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether

the interference is significant. If ordinary persons living in the community would regard

the interference in question as substantially offensive, seriously annoying or intolerable,

then the interference is significant. If not, then the interference is not a significant one.

Rights are based on the general standards of ordinary persons in the community and not on

the standards of persons who are more sensitive than ordinary persons.

Third, (defendant) intentionally caused the public nuisance. A person’s conduct caused

the public nuisance if it was a substantial factor in producing the nuisance.

A nuisance is intentional if the person acts for the purpose of causing the nuisance or

knows that the nuisance is resulting or is substantially certain to result from the person’s

conduct.5

Fourth, (defendant’s) conduct in causing the nuisance was unreasonable.6 An

intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable

if:

(a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s conduct, or

(b) the harm caused by the conduct is serious and the cost of compensating for this and

similar harm to others would still make it feasible for (defendant) to continue the conduct.7

VERDICT

Question No. 1: Did [Does] a public nuisance exist?

ANSWER: _________

(Yes/No)

Question No. 2: If you answered “Yes” to Question 1, then answer this question:

Did the nuisance result in significant harm to (plaintiff) that was different from the harm

suffered by other members of the public exercising the common right that was the subject

of interference?8

ANSWER: _________

(Yes/No)

Question No. 3: If you answered “Yes” to Question 2, then answer this question:

Did (defendant) intentionally cause the public nuisance?

ANSWER: _________

(Yes/No)

Question No. 4: If you answered “Yes” to Question 3, then answer this question:

Was (defendant)’s conduct in causing the nuisance unreasonable?

ANSWER: _________

(Yes/No)

Question No. 5: Regardless of how you answered any of the other questions, answer this

question:

What sum of money will reasonably compensate (plaintiff) for harm suffered?

ANSWER: $_____________