1217 REVIEW DENIED A condition or activity is not a nuisance per se unless a statute expressly declares it to be so; a condition or activity is not a public nuisance unless it affects an entire community or a considerable number of people; a condition of realty created lawfully and with the consent of the landowner may be privileged against nuisance liability to subsequent owners of the land; for the purpose of determining when the statute of limitations begins to run, a nuisance or trespass should be considered permanent, rather than continuing, unless plaintiff shows that it can be abated by reasonable means and at reasonable cost.CitationBECK v SOUTHERN PACIFIC (Buried Reservoir) 44 CA4 1160 [See: CivC 3479; Aetna v Industrial 30 C2 388; Eaton v Klimm 217 C 362; Venuto v Owens-Corning 22 CA3 116; Biber v O'Brien 138 CA 353; Mangini v Aerojet (I) 230 CA3 1125; Mangini v Aerojet (II) 12 C4 1087, T/AT 5/96]
|
|