Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows

Supreme Court of Oregon · Property

PropertyNuisanceTrespassprivate nuisancetrespass vs nuisanceabnormally sensitive useordinary reasonable personsubstantial and unreasonable interference

Facts

Defendant began planning and constructing a lighted horse-racing track in 1945 and completed it in September 1946; plaintiff later built an adjoining drive-in movie theater that opened on August 31, 1946. Plaintiff's screen faced defendant's track, and plaintiff's operation required protection from outside light, including fences against car lights and a shadow box against moon and starlight. Defendant's floodlights, mounted around the track, spilled reflected light onto plaintiff's screen from as close as 832 feet away, with intensity approximately equal to full moonlight, impairing picture quality and causing some financial loss. Defendant installed hoods and louvers to reduce the light, but plaintiff sued shortly after racing began.

Issue

Does reflected light from defendant's race-track floodlights constitute a trespass or actionable private nuisance when it interferes with the operation of plaintiff's drive-in movie screen? More specifically, is defendant liable when the interference harms only plaintiff's unusually light-sensitive use of the property?

Rule

The casting of light onto another's land is governed by nuisance, not trespass. An intentional interference with the use and enjoyment of land is actionable only if it is both substantial and unreasonable, judged by its effect on an ordinarily reasonable person and ordinary uses of land; no action lies where the harm results solely from the plaintiff's abnormally sensitive property or exceptionally delicate use.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nora Kim leases land for a dusk-to-midnight outdoor art projection venue. On the adjoining parcel, Lakefront Fairgrounds LLC installs stadium lights for evening livestock shows, and some reflected light reaches Nora's projection wall, reducing image quality but causing no physical contact or structural damage.

If Nora sues alleging trespass based solely on the light entering her leased premises, which is the best result?

Explanation. The majority treated light like smoke and odors: a non-trespassory invasion governed by nuisance law rather than trespass. Trespass in this context requires the kind of entry the court did not attribute to spilled light. So a claim based solely on light reaching the property is not actionable as trespass.