A nuisance in the eyes of the court can be defined as an unreasonable, substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of property. In this case Smith v. Johnson the plaintiff, Roberta Smith, is alleging that genetically modified ladybugs [Hungry Hungry Ladybugs or HHL’s] designed by the defendant, Patrick Johnson, are presenting her otherwise profitable organic farm Sunrise Farms with “financial disaster”. The HHL’s were released on the defendant’s farm to control pests, but soon flew to the plaintiff’s farm. The HHL’s have demonstrated an appetite for human flesh and have been observed biting customer’s eyes at the plaintiff’s farms causing the customers to scream. Workers cannot harvest enough produce to meet orders and customers no longer patronize the farm. It is clear that a significant and unnatural interference to the plaintiff’s property is caused by the defendant’s HHL’s and thus …show more content…
Johnson is referencing Tennessee Copper Co. which issued an injunction that limited the amount of burning allowed. In a similar suit Ducktown Sulphur an injunction was not issued because it would put 12,000 people out of work. An injunction was granted in Tennessee Copper Co. because Georgia (a sovereign state) brought the suit and its sovereign interests are protected. The defendant is right that his HHL’s are nothing like the roastpiles, however, like the roastpiles they present a substantial imposition on the plaintiff’s profitability of their business just as Madison was hurt in Ducktown Sulphur. Though an injunction was not issued in Ducktown Sulphur, this was to protect the 12,000 employee’s jobs because there were no other options in the town. Johnson’s HHL’s only benefit his farm and there are other alternatives to pest control. It is not accurate to compare this case to either of the decisions given in the aforementioned