In Atkinson v.City of Pierre,Atkinson sued the city for not taking action to force an ice-making plant next to her apartment building to make less noise.Her suit claiming nuisance resulted in a decision by the high court of South Dakota which held that:
A) the city failed to follow its own noise ordinances by allowing a public nuisance
B) the city had no obligation in the matter,as it was a private nuisance,so she would have to sue the ice-making plant owner
C) there was a public nuisance,which was the obligation of the city to address,and a private nuisance,which was the fault of the ice-making plant owner
D) the noise constituted a trespass in her apartment,so she was due damages from the ice-making plant owner
E) none of the other choices
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q227: In Smith v. Kulig, Smith was killed
Q237: If there is a dangerous condition on
Q241: In Atkinson v. City of Pierre, Atkinson
Q242: The tort defined as the intentional and
Q247: A _ is an activity that substantially
Q252: The tort of _ occurs when someone
Q253: The tort defined as the intentional and
Q254: Your neighbor burns old tires in his
Q255: The major difference between public nuisance and
Q257: A private nuisance involves:
A) a reasonable interference
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents