PAGE COUNTY APPLIANCE CENTER v. HONEYWELL Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An appliance store sued a computer manufacturer and lessor for nuisance due to electromagnetic interference with display televisions. The court reversed and remanded, finding jury issues on nuisance but insufficient evidence for tortious interference.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies private nuisance principles, particularly that displaying televisions is not an inherently hypersensitive use of property as a matter of law, and addresses substantial participation in creating a nuisance.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Page County Appliance Center, Inc. (Appliance Center) operated an appliance store. In 1980, ITT Electronic Travel Services, Inc. (ITT) leased a computer, manufactured and maintained by Honeywell, Inc. (Honeywell), to Central Travel Service, a neighboring business. The computer emitted radiation that interfered with the Appliance Center’s display televisions, causing poor picture quality and alleged loss of sales. Pearson, owner of Appliance Center, notified Central Travel, who contacted ITT. Honeywell technicians made several unsuccessful attempts to fix the radiation leakage, which was a design problem. Pearson alleged Honeywell was slow to respond and only took significant action after suit was filed. The interference was eventually resolved in May 1982. Appliance Center sued Honeywell and ITT for nuisance and tortious interference with business relations. The jury found for Appliance Center on both counts, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. ITT also received indemnity from Honeywell. Both defendants appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in denying defendants’ motions for directed verdict on the private nuisance claim by finding that the plaintiff’s use of display televisions was not a hypersensitive use as a matter of law and that there was sufficient evidence of defendants’ substantial participation in the nuisance?
Reversed and remanded. The trial court did not err in denying directed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sin
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the trial court err in denying defendants’ motions for directed verdict on the private nuisance claim by finding that the plaintiff’s use of display televisions was not a hypersensitive use as a matter of law and that there was sufficient evidence of defendants’ substantial participation in the nuisance?
Conclusion
This case establishes that the hypersensitivity defense in private nuisance is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea co
Legal Rule
A private nuisance is an actionable interference with a person's interest in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem
Legal Analysis
The court determined that displaying televisions is not an inherently hypersensitive use Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercita
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Displaying televisions is not a “hypersensitive use” of property as a