Law of the Henhouse
Abbey Haas
In 2010, my family had new neighbors move into the house behind us—their backyard shared a fence with ours. Our neighborhood allowed for most houses to have a backyard and a substantial amount of space, but not an excessive amount. For example, I could see the yards of my neighbors on all sides from my yard. For a few months, there was no change. However, after about six months, they got chickens. Not one or two, but an entire henhouse of chickens and a rooster. Not only did the rooster wake the neighborhood up with its crowing at dawn, but the chickens attracted the ever-growing fox population in my Pennsylvania suburb.
The foxes attack at night, making horrendous noises and often leaving chicken carcass scraps on our lawn. This was alarming to my parents for multiple reasons. For one, my siblings and I were little, and as the chickens drew more foxes in, they got bolder about killing the chickens during the daytime. Not only this, but I have a small dog, so we had to be vigilant about letting her outside without supervision. This caused my parents stress for the safety of their kids and pets, a risk that would have been significantly reduced without the addition of farm animals to our small community. Additionally it further impaired the enjoyment of our own land, because the chickens often find holes in the fence, leaving droppings and eggs in our yard.
To resolve this dispute, it’s helpful to look at the nuisance doctrine from Sans v. Ramsey Golf & Country Club, Inc. In this dispute, a family who moved in near a golf course could not enjoy their property because golfers used a path on their land to access certain holes on the neighboring course. Their children were scolded by golfers, their dog was knocked out, and they could not enjoy the rights to boat and fish on the shared lake without fear of being hit by golf balls. The court held that while the golf club members have a right to ordinary and expected use of the golf course, the family also has a correlative right to the enjoyment of their property. Because the activities of the defendant golf course are manifestly incompatible with the ordinary and expected comfortable life in the family’s home and normal use of their property, it constituted a private nuisance, in which unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land of the Plaintiff grants relief. Further, because the parties’ interests in this case stem from a common source, the Defendant’s activities materially and unreasonably interfered with the Plaintiff’s habits. Thus, the Court affirmed the Trial Court and Appellate Division’s decision and granted relief to the family in order to protect the proper balance of equitable convenience.
The doctrine of nuisance provides useful insights for the scenario with the foxes in my family’s backyard. Case law says that the elements of nuisance are myriad, but looking at the Ramsey case, identifying the “unreasonable” use of land or operation of his business is where the analysis starts. While the neighbors were not actually using my family’s property, the use of their property created a reasonable harm. It’s important to think about the specific facts, like the evidence of dead chicken carcasses on our lawn, the physical sight of the foxes, waking our family up with the roosters crowing, the chickens not being contained to their land. It would likely be undisputed that this would certain impact the use of my family’s land, but it would likely be arguable because my neighbors themselves weren’t using our property. The parties’ interests in this case stem from a common use of enjoying their own land without inhibiting the others. On one hand, my neighbors have a right to use their land how they want to, but on the other hand, my family could argue that the danger of attracting foxes outweighs the benefits of them having chickens. We could also argue that if they wanted to have farm animals, it would be reasonable to live on a larger piece of land, where close neighbors would not be impacted.
Because the rule of nuisance is so broad, it is difficult to see a clear answer here. I am biased, since this was a personal story, but it is extremely interesting to think about nonetheless. The policy considerations behind protecting from potentially dangerous animals is something I would also think about when thinking through the possible remedies for this dispute. Based on the above paragraph, I would argue that my family would be on the winning side of the dispute because the case law lends itself to benefit the Plaintiff if they can prove that their enjoyment of land use was substantially impaired by the nuisance of the Defendant’s actions.
Abbey Haas is a 1L student interested in Environmental Law at the American University Washington College of Law.
Image: Alvesgaspar, Chicken February 2009-1.
