Prah v. Maretti

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1982 · Property

PropertyTortsnuisancesolar accesslight and airreasonable useprivate nuisancesolar energy

Facts

The plaintiff owned a residence built in 1978-1979 with a rooftop solar system for heat and hot water. After the plaintiff built his solar-heated house, the defendant purchased the adjacent lot immediately south and planned to build a home there. The plaintiff warned that the proposed location would cast shadows on the solar collectors, reduce system efficiency, and possibly damage the system, and asked the defendant to move the house several feet farther from the lot line. The defendant proceeded with construction under plans approved by the subdivision Architectural Control Committee and the City of Muskego Planning Commission, and the dispute centered on the combination of the home's location and the property's grade.

Issue

Does the owner of a solar-heated residence state a claim for relief when an adjoining landowner's proposed construction allegedly unreasonably obstructs access to sunlight across the adjoining land? More specifically, can common law private nuisance law apply to claimed interference with solar access even when the proposed construction conforms to deed restrictions and local ordinances?

Rule

Private nuisance law, specifically the reasonable use doctrine set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, applies to claims of unreasonable obstruction of access to sunlight across adjoining land. A landowner's compliance with zoning laws, building codes, and deed restrictions is relevant but not controlling, and whether the obstruction is actionable depends on whether the defendant's conduct unreasonably invades the plaintiff's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.

🔒

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 Madison, Elena Ruiz installed rooftop solar collectors to heat water for her home. Months later, her neighbor, Noah Benton, obtained all local approvals to build a detached studio on his lot; Elena alleges the structure will substantially shade her collectors and reduce their effectiveness.

If Noah moves to dismiss on the ground that Wisconsin common law recognizes no claim for obstruction of sunlight across adjoining land, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that private nuisance law applies to alleged unreasonable obstruction of access to sunlight across adjoining land. The complaint need not rely on an easement or statute to survive dismissal. The key point is not that every obstruction is actionable, but that such allegations can state a nuisance claim subject to reasonable-use balancing.