Arguments & Counterarguments

Front 1

Right to Security (P's argument)

Back 1

"Sic uteret tuo ut alienum non laedas" (use your property so as not to harm the interests of others); property owners have the right to protect their property interests from harm by their neighbors' use of their property; the purpose of the rule of law is to protect each person's life and property from being harmed by others.

Front 2

Right to freedom of action (D's argument)

Back 2

"Damnum absque injuria" (damage w/o legal redress); property owners have the right to use their property as they see fit; a property owner's use of her property should not make her neighbors' use of their property more difficult or expensive; the law should protect owners' interests in freedom and liberty in controlling their property

Front 3

Altruism (P's argument for security)

Back 3

Golden rule; look out for others; it is morally wrong for property owners to use their property in a way that wrongly inflict harm on their neighbors' property interests.

Front 4

Individualism (D's argument for freedom of action)

Back 4

Self-reliance; look out for oneself; each owner should foresee that others will develop their property and protect themselves from potential incompatible uses.

Front 5

Morality: Compensation
(P's argum. for security)

Back 5

As between 2 innocents, whoever caused the damage should pay.

Front 6

Morality: No liability without fault
(D's argum. for freedom of action)

Back 6

People should not be punished if they have done nothing wrong; no liability if it wasn't foreseeable that use of one's property would harm one's neighbors' prop.

Front 7

Reasonable expectations: Foreseeability
(P's argum. for security)

Back 7

Prop. owners and possessors should foresee the consequences of their land use to their neighbors and take precautions against harming them.

Front 8

Reasonable expectations:
Foreseeability
(D's argum. for freedom of action)

Back 8

Prop. owners should foresee that neighbors will develop their prop. & take precautions against foreseeable incompatible land uses.

Front 9

Reasonable expectations:
Justified expectations
(P's argum. for security)

Back 9

Possessors reasonably expect their neighbors to adjust their land use to be compatible w/ neighborhood conditions and not to inflict unreas. damage to neighboring prop.

Front 10

Reasonable expectations:
Justified expectations:
(D's argum. for freedom of action)

Back 10

Prop. owners reasonably expect to be able to develop their own prop.; prio developers on neighboring land have no right to prevent later development on neighboring prop.