Corinne Saussier owns property in California desert where she lives since 2001. In 2014, a newly completed solar power plant operated by Bright Future Solar began operating near her property. The bright light from the plant aggravates Saussier's migraines and blocks her view, and has burned birds. Saussier intends to sue BFS for private and public nuisance. This memorandum discusses whether Saussier has a claim for private nuisance due to interference with use of her property from the bright light, and public nuisance due to suffering special injuries from the light. The memorandum recommends suing BFS as Saussier probably can prove private and public nuisance claims.

1. MEMORANDUM
To: Daniel K. Liffmann and Morgan Schwartz
From: Yu Chi Lin
Date: November 24, 2014
Re: Corinne Saussier – File No. 14579 –Possible Private
and Public Nuisance Claims Relating to a Solar-Energy-
Generating Facility
Our client, Corinne Saussier, has lived on a property
located in the California desert since 2001. In 2014, a newly
completed solar power plant owned by Bright Future Solar, LLC
(BFS) begin operating in her neighborhood. The facility emits
bright light which aggravates Saussier’s migraines, makes her
unable to garden, blinds drivers on a nearby highway, blocks her
view and burns birds. Saussier intends to file a civil suit
against BFS, alleging that the facility is a private and public
nuisance and seeking for injunctive relief and damages. This
memorandum assumes that the facility is not violating any laws
or regulations and there is no state or federal statute,
regulation, or study that controls this situation. This
memorandum considers whether Saussier has successful claim for
(1) private nuisance due to the solar tower (2) public nuisance
due to her suffering of a special injury different from the
general public.
QUSTIONS PRESENTED
A. Does a homeowner have a private nuisance claim against
a power plant given that a bright light generated by the power
plant aggravates homeowner’s migraine and makes the homeowner
unable to do research, garden, sit on the porch and causes the
homeowner fear of being struck at the intersection of the
homeowner’s driveway, even though the homeowner can reduce the
migraine by not looking at the light and the society needs solar
power plant to generate clean energy.

2. 2
B. Has the homeowner sustained a special injury for
purposes of a public nuisance against the power plant given that
the homeowner suffers migraines and fears being struck by
blinded drivers, even though the public also suffers headaches
from the light and is at risk from being hit by the blinded
drivers?
BRIEF ANSWERS/RECOMMENDATION
A. Probably yes. The homeowner probably has a claim for
private nuisance because the bright light causes the homeowner’s
migraines and makes the homeowner unable to do research, garden
or sit outside and fears being struck by blinded drivers likely
constitutes substantial and unreasonable interference with the
use of homeowner’s property.
B. Probably yes. The homeowner probably has a claim for
public nuisance because the migraines and fear of being struck
by blinded drivers the homeowner suffered are probably different
in kind from what the public suffers although the public also
suffers headaches and fear of being struck by blinded drivers on
the highway.
The homeowner probably can prove both private and public
nuisance, thus, I recommend we sue.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Our client, Corinne Saussier, lives on forty acres of
property in the California desert that she bought in 2001. In

3. 3
2014, Bright Future Solar (BFS) started operating a newly
completed in Saussier’s neighborhood. Bright light from the
facility obstructs Saussier’s view and aggravates Saussier’s
migraines, blinds drivers on a nearby highway, and produces heat
that burns birds. Saussier intends to file a civil suit against
BFS, alleging that the facility is a private and public nuisance
and seeking both injunctive relief and damages.
Saussier bought her historic house which cannot change the
structure without permit with forty acres of property for
studying the California desert and enjoying the view. In 2010,
BFI bought 4,000 acres adjacent land to build a solar plant and
it went operational in early 2014. The facility contains
hundreds of heliostats which are made up of mirrors used to
reflect sunlight up onto receivers on a 450 foot high tower.
The receivers concentrate sunlight to generate the electricity
but also produce heat and bright light. The bright light could
be avoided by using photovoltaic panels instead of the
heliostats.
Saussier can see the light from her front porch, and
because of the blinding light, she suffers an aggravation of
migraines which make her unable to study the desert outside, sit
on her porch or garden in the yard. Neighbors who lives far
away also get headaches from the bright light. Drivers on a
nearby highway are blinded by the bright light and they drive

4. 4
right past Saussier’s property and an intersection of her
driveway. An accident happened on the highway due to the bright
light but BFS asserts that drivers are able to avoid the light
by putting down sunshades and adverting their eyes. Five to six
charred birds are found in Saussier’s yard.
DISCUSSION
A nuisance is “anything which is injurious to health, or is
indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the
free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of life or property.” Venuto v. Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp., 99 Cal. Rptr. 350, 354 (Ct. App. 1970). A
private nuisance is “an interference with the use and enjoyment
of land.” Id. A public nuisance is “one which affects at the
same time an entire community or any considerable number of
persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage
inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” Id.
A. Whether Saussier Has a Claim for Private Nuisance Due
to the Solar Tower?
For a claim for private nuisance, the offending conduct
must interfere with another’s private use and enjoyment of their
property in a substantial and unreasonable manner. Venuto, 99
Cal. Rptr. at 355. Whether an invasion is substantial is based
on whether a normal person would be substantially annoyed or
disturbed by the invasion. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v.

5. 5
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 669, 696 (Cal. 1996). In San Diego Gas
& Elec. Co., fearing that power lines running through the
homeowner’s property would emit dangerous levels of radiation
that may cause physical harm does not constitute a substantial
interference because a reasonable person would not belief that
60 Hz electric and magnetic fields would cause a substantial
risk of physical harm. Id. at 697. Conversely, a reasonable
person may suffered a substantial harm by the odor emitted from
an adjacent sewage treatment plant because the odor is offensive
and caused burning eyes and nausea on landowners. Varjabedian v.
City of Madera, 572 P.2d 43, 49 (Cal. 1977).
When determining whether an invasion is unreasonable,
consider whether a reasonable person would deem the invasion so
serious that it outweighs the social utility of defendant's
conduct. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 920 P.2d at 697. In San
Diego Gas & Elec. Co., merely fearing the radiation emitted by
powerlines would cause physical harm did not constitute a
unreasonable interference because a reasonable person would not
deem the fear of physical harm caused by 60Hz electric and
magnetic fields so serious that it outweighs the social utility
of the company's transmitting power conduct. Id. On the
contrary, in Varjabedian, an offensive odor so serious that it
outweighs the social utility of the municipality’s sewage
treatment conduct because the odor emitted from a sewage

6. 6
treatment plant was unavoidable and caused landowners’ eyes
burning and nausea. Varjabedian, 572 P.2d at 50. In addition,
a structure does not constitute a nuisance merely because it
obstructs the view from the neighboring property. Wolford v.
Thomas, 235 Cal. Rptr. 422, 427 (Ct. App. 1987). In Wolford,
the obstruction of a bay view by neighbor’s building was not a
private nuisance because homeowners had no natural right to an
unobstructed view. Id.
Here, Saussier may not have a claim for private nuisance
because the interference of the bright light may not be
substantial and unreasonable because she has no natural right to
an unobstructed view. Just like a reasonable person would not
suffer substantial harm from fear of physical harm caused by 60
Hz electric and magnetic fields and powerlines running through
the home and a reasonable person would not deem the fearing so
serious that it out weights the social utility of the company’s
transmitting power conduct in San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., a
reasonable person may not suffer substantial harm merely because
of fear of being struck by a blinded drivers because the drivers
can avoid being blinded by simply putting down their sunshades
and averting their eyes. Therefore, a reasonable person might
not deem Saussier’s fearing out weights the social utility of
clean energy. Moreover, unlike the harm caused by the offensive
odor that was so substantial that it caused eyes burning and

7. 7
nausea and could not be avoided in Varjabedian, Saussier can
avoid the bright light by just not looking at the tower,
therefore, a normal person might not suffer substantial harm
from the bright light and would not deem the migraines so
serious that it out weights the social utility of clean energy.
Furthermore, like a homeowner has no right when bay view
obstructed by a new building in Wolford, Saussier has no natural
right to claim private nuisance merely because a power plant
obstructs her view. In addition, only five or six charred birds
found in Saussier’s yard in nine months are not as substantial
as the physical harm caused by the odor from the sewage plant in
Varjabedian.
On the other hand, Saussier probably has a claim for
private nuisance because the migraines she suffers and the fear
of being struck by blinded drivers probably is substantial and a
reasonable person might deem the harm so serious that it out
weights social utility of clean energy. Like in Varjabedian, in
which the offensive odor from sewage plant cause substantial
harm that made landowners’ eyes burning and nausea and a
reasonable person would deem it so serious that it outweighs the
social utility of the county’s sewage treatment conduct, here,
bright light emitted from the power plant also causes
substantial harm that aggravate Saussier’s migraines, makes her
unable to do research outside, garden in the yard, and sit on

8. 8
the porch which outweighs the benefit of solar power.
Furthermore, Saussier cannot avoid the bright light by changing
her house’s structure because it is a historical landmark but
BFS can avoid the bright light by using photovoltaic collection
panel instead of heliostats, therefore, a reasonable person may
deem the gravity of Saussier’s harm out weights the social
utility of BFS’s clean energy generating conduct. Unlike in San
Diego Gas & Elec. Co., in which a reasonable person would not
experience a substantial harm by fearing 60 Hz electric and
magnetic fields and powerlines ran through home would cause
physical harm and would not deem the invasion so serious that it
outweighs the social utility of defendant's transmitting power
conduct, here, Saussier suffer substantial fear of harm because
the light blinds drivers when they pass Saussier’s driveway
intersection and an accident has already happened on the highway
because of the bright light, which indicates that a reasonable
person may suffers substantial harm by fearing being hit by
blinded drivers and may deem it out weights the social utility
of clean energy.
B. Does Saussier Have a Claim for Public Nuisance Due to Her
Suffering a Special Injury Different In Kind from the Public?
A person may maintain an action for a public nuisance if
that person has suffered a special injury that is of a character
different in kind from that suffered by the general public.

9. 9
Venuto, 99 Cal. Rptr. at 355. In Venuto, the plaintiffs did not
suffer a special injury because the plaintiff’s allergies and
respiratory disorders caused by the air pollution from a nearby
fiberglass manufacturing plant were not different in kind from
the irritation that the general public suffered. Id. at 356.
Contrary, a resident suffered a special injury because the
allergies and asthma the resident suffered caused by a
landlord’s failure to limit secondhand tobacco smoke in outdoor
common areas was different in kind from the increased risk of
heart disease and lung cancer that general public suffered,
therefore, the resident had a claim for public nuisance. Birke
v. Oakwood Worldwide, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 602, 609 (Ct. App. 2009).
Here, Saussier may not have a claim for public nuisance
because her migraines might not be different in kind but only in
degree from the headaches experienced by the public, just like
the allergies and respiratory disorders the plaintiff suffered
are not different in kind but merely in degree from the general
irritation the public suffered in Venuto.
However, Saussier probably does have a claim for public
nuisance because her migraines caused by the bright light and
her fearing of being struck by the blinded drivers at the
intersection of her driveway are likely a special injury that is
different in kind from the headaches and the fear of being
struck by blinded drivers on the high way the public suffers.

10. 10
Like the allergies and asthma the resident suffered that were
different in kind from the increased risk of heart disease and
lung cancer that general public suffered in Birke, Saussier’s
migraines make her unable to do research out of her house,
garden in her back yard and sit on her porch, which are
different in kind from the headaches experienced by the public.
Moreover, unlike the allergies and respiratory disorders the
plaintiff suffered are the same in kind with the irrigation to
the respiration the public suffered in Venuto, Saussier’s fear
of harm is different in kind with the general public because she
is terrified by the blinded drivers every time when she pulls
her car out of her driveway which may be different in kind from
the fear of driving while blinded on the highway suffered by the
public.
In sum, Saussier probably has claims for pivate nuisance
and public nuisance because the harms she has suffered from her
migraines and fearing of being struck by the blinded drivers
might be substantial and unreasonable and these harms are likely
different in kind from the headaches and the fear of being
blinded while driving suffered by the public.
CONCLUSION
Saussier probably has a claim for private nuisance because
a reasonable person likely would suffer substantial harm by the
migraines, the restriction of movement, the fear of being struck

11. 11
by blinded drivers, and a reasonable person probably would deem
the harm so serious that it out weights the social utility of
clean energy. Moreover, Saussier might have a claim for public
nuisance because the migraine and the fear of being struck by
blinded drivers are different in kind from the public, which
constitutes a special injury for a claim of public nuisance.