Reference no: EM133425773

Part I: Cook v. City of Du Quoin Case Brief FACTS:

Jackson Cook (the original plaintiff) brought up a suit against the defendant, Du Quoin Packaging Company. The case was for the defendant's contribution to the contamination of a water stream nearby.
The case was brought to the Upper Court for an appeal.
The court found the appellant guilty (the City of Du Quoin) and charged them an appellee's damages cost of $1,750.
The Du Quoin Packaging Company was found not guilty.
It was discovered that there was a septic tank located above the packing plant, which discharged sewage into a ditch that led to Reese Creek.
The stream was contaminated to the point where the smell caused families to move out, fish to die, and the water was unfit for farming. It heavily affected Jackson Crook.
There was no evidence offered that would contradict that of the appellee other than the claim that the natural watercourse caused the pollution in Reese Creek.

ISSUE:

The issue is whether the Du Quoin Packaging company was liable for the contamination and pollution of the water in Reese Creeks' water stream.

LAWS:

"It is the right of every land owner over which a stream of water flows to have it flow in its natural state and with its quality unaffected. It is a part of the freehold, of which the owner cannot be disseized except by due process of law, and the pollution of a stream constitutes the taking of property, which may not be done with compensation." "Where the acts of several persons, although separate and distinct as to time and place, culminate in producing a public nuisance, which injures the person or property of another, they are jointly and severally liable." "Where the injury is physical discomfort and results in deprivation of the comfortable enjoyment of a home, the measure of damages is not the depreciation in the rental value of the premises but compensation for such physical discomfort and deprivation of the use and comforts of home and is to be determined by the sound judgment, experience, and discretion of the court or jury that may be called to determine the question given the facts in each particular case." "Another common law cause of action could be brought for negligence, where a person or a business breached a duty to care to others in the community. A factory that did not provide adequate ventilation in its building, causing harm to its employees, could be sued for negligence. A private party might also be sued for negligence, for recklessly spraying herbicide in their yard, if that herbicide blew into neighborhood into a neighbor's yard and destroyed the neighbor's garden."

HOLDING:

The holding was that the jury decided that the appellant (the City of Du Quoin) was guilty of creating and maintaining a continuing nuisance. They also found the Packing Company not guilty of this nuisance.

ANALYSIS:

From reading the case and understanding the facts, I believe that the jury's verdict is justified because the packing company was falsely accused of something they weren't doing and that the sewer construction was the direct cause of the contamination and pollution of the water. This clearly shows that the appellant, the City of Du Quoin, should be charged for their actions affecting many people and nature, not the Packing Company.

Part II:

Advise Peterson whether the holding in Cook v. City of Du Quoin, 256 Ill. App. 452 (Ill. App. Ct. 1930) would allow him to recover money damages from EG successfully. If so, why? If not, why not?

The holding would allow him to recover the money damages from EG successfully. I think this because, according to the hypothetical, Peterson is being stripped of the comforts of his home because of the odors, which can also affect his health. This is enough for him to be able to recover the money damages.

What would be the measure of his damages?

There would be no measure in terms of depreciation in the value of the premise but rather by the impact it had on Peterson himself - in the forms of the discomfort and uneasiness he felt at his own home.

Could the court order EG to shut down the factory or reduce or eliminate the emissions? If so, why? If not, why not?

The court could order EG to shut down the factory or eliminate the emissions. If the court requests EG to reduce the number of emissions or comply with standard environmental rules and regulations and they disagree/comply, then the company could quickly be shut down by court order.

Would your answer be different if Peterson moved to the neighborhood after the plant had been operating for some time?