In Case 23-1, the New York Court of Appeals became the third court to find the Atlantic Cement Company guilty of committing a nuisance against the plaintiff Boomer. At the same time, the state’s...

In Case 23-1, the New York Court of Appeals became the third court to find the Atlantic Cement Company guilty of committing a nuisance against the plaintiff Boomer. At the same time, the state’s highest court also became the third court not to grant an injunction to halt the cement company’s pollution. At first glance, the finding of the court and its subsequent decision seem to contradict one another. A closer look at the case, however, reveals that Judge Bergan, in delivering the decision, qualified when a nuisance warrants an injunction. The questions that follow will help you identify this qualification and determine the primary ethical norm to which such a qualification is tied.

1. To demonstrate your ability to follow legal reasoning, in your own words, run down the court’s reasoning for its decision. Clue: Do not be too narrow here. You want to identify (1) why the court granted damages to the plaintiff and (2) why the court did not order an injunction.

2. The court argued that granting the plaintiff monetary damages should promote more environmentally friendly practices on the part of businesses, because they would develop technologies to avoid having to pay damages. What assumption did the court make in this reasoning? Clue: Reread the court’s reasoning. This assumption is related to the quantitative relationship between the damages imposed on businesses for polluting and the economic benefits of polluting for businesses.