In nuisance cases, injunctions are the standard remedy to stop ongoing interference with property use.

Nuisance is one of those everyday-law topics that feels almost tangible. Think about the neighbor who blasts music at 2 a.m., or a factory that wafts smoke across your yard, or a loud construction site that turns your porch into a concert hall you didn’t buy tickets for. When your use and enjoyment of your property is disrupted, the law steps in. The question that always comes up in a Georgia torts context is: what remedy does the court usually give?

Here’s the thing about nuisance remedies. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer, but there is a clear pattern you’ll see in many cases: the remedy is meant to stop the nuisance from happening or continuing, while also addressing the harms you’ve already suffered. The multiple-choice prompt you might encounter usually lists a few possibilities, like an injunction prohibiting the nuisance, restitution for land use, damages for all resulting harm, or transfer of property rights. The example you’ll see in many study guides centers on damages for all resulting harm, but the real practice is a bit more layered.

Let me walk you through it in practical terms.

Nuisance in plain language

• What counts as a nuisance? It’s something that interferes with the use or enjoyment of land. It can be a sound, odor, vibration, light, or any ongoing interference that isn’t just a one-off disturbance.

• The harm is often ongoing. If the nuisance stops, the risk to future harm fades away. If the nuisance continues, the harm could mount, affecting how the court might respond.

The typical remedy landscape

• Injunctions: The most familiar and powerful tool. An injunction is a court order that stops the nuisance activity or limits how it’s conducted. Because the nuisance is ongoing, stopping the behavior at the source often matters more than chasing damages after the fact. This is the “stop the problem at its root” approach, and it’s highly favored in nuisance cases.

• Damages: Money to compensate for harm that has already occurred, or for measurable losses caused by the nuisance. This can cover things like a drop in property value, loss of use, or other quantifiable harms. Damages are not as effective at preventing future harm by themselves, but they serve an important compensatory role.

• Restitution or other remedies: In some contexts, you’ll see claims for restitution or similar equitable adjustments. But in nuisance, the core tools you’re likely to encounter are injunctive relief and damages.

A closer look at the exam-style question

The typical exam prompt asks something like: “What is typically the usual remedy for a nuisance claim?” The choices might include:

• A. Injunction prohibiting the nuisance

• B. Restitution for through-land use

• C. Damages for all resulting harm

• D. Transfer of property rights to the plaintiff

Now, here’s the nuance you’ll see in real life and in the commentary that accompanies these questions. The correct answer in some treatments is presented as damages for all resulting harm. Yet, many practitioners and courts emphasize injunctive relief as the primary tool to halt ongoing interference. In other words, the yardstick isn’t simply “past harms versus future harms.” It’s about whether the nuisance continues and whether there’s a practical, effective way to stop it. If the nuisance can be abated by an injunction, that relief is usually the most straightforward path to restoring the plaintiff’s right to quiet enjoyment. Damages for past harm may still be sought, and in some situations, a court may award both an injunction and damages to cover the full scope of harms.

Here’s a useful mental model:

• If the nuisance is ongoing and stoppable, think injunction first. The goal is to restore the landowner’s peace and use by stopping the source of the trouble.

• If the nuisance isn’t easily stoppable, or if the stopping itself would cause other serious problems, damages for the harm already suffered become more central, with or without some form of ongoing relief.

• If the nuisance can’t be stopped at all (rare, but possible in certain complex settings), damages may be the primary remedy to address the losses caused by the nuisance.

Why injunctions tend to take center stage

• Stopping the conduct stops the harm. An injunction tackles the root issue and prevents new harm from piling up.

• It provides a clear path to restoring normal use of the property. When you’re dealing with quiet enjoyment, the best remedy is often simply to pause or modify the nuisance-causing activity.

• It’s a proactive remedy. Damages fix what happened; injunctions prevent what will happen if nothing changes.

When damages step into the spotlight

• Damages shine when the nuisance is not easily curbed or when abatement isn’t feasible without causing disproportionate burdens. For example, if the nuisance involves a long-standing use that can’t easily be eliminated without damage to other interests, a monetary award may be appropriate.

• They also serve as a recognized remedy for harm already sustained—loss in property value, diminished enjoyment, or other measurable detriments.

• Collecting damages alongside injunctive relief is common in many cases, especially where the court wants to ensure both immediate cessation and compensation for lasting impacts.

Georgia-specific flavor (a practical nudge)

Georgia courts, like many other jurisdictions, emphasize restoring the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of property. The preferred approach is often to stop the nuisance with an injunction, so that future harm doesn’t accumulate. That said, Georgia case law does not shut the door on damages. Where there’s a concrete, proven loss tied to the nuisance, damages can be awarded. The takeaway is simple: know the two main tools, and understand when to lean on one or the other—or both.

A practical take for navigating problems

• Start with the question: is the nuisance ongoing and capable of being stopped? If yes, an injunction is usually the most direct remedy.

• If you’re dealing with past harms or a scenario where stopping the activity isn’t straightforward, look to damages for compensation, and consider whether partial injunctive relief (such as a curfew, sound limits, or setbacks) could be paired with damages.

• Remember that the remedy you seek should align with the harm. If the harm is ongoing, stopping it is often the most effective remedy. If the harm is already done, compensation becomes central.

• In a courtroom setting, you might present both paths: request an injunction to halt the nuisance, while also seeking damages for the losses already suffered. Courts commonly entertain that dual approach when the facts justify it.

A few tangible takeaways

• The usual headline remedy is injunctive relief, aimed at stopping the nuisance at its source. This is the move that can restore your client’s peace of mind and property use.

• Damages exist to compensate for what’s already happened, and they remain a crucial part of the toolbox, especially when the nuisance is hard to extinguish or has caused measurable losses.

• The best strategy often combines both: an injunction to prevent future harm, plus damages for past harm. The winning approach depends on the specifics of the nuisance, how easily it can be abated, and the extent of the harm.

A tiny digression for flavor

If you’ve ever watched a neighbor dispute unfold over sprinkler systems, or a factory’s odor, you’ll recognize how quickly the practical realities meet legal tools. In real life, people don’t just want the nuisance to stop; they want to feel safe in their own yards and to have their property values protected. That blend of remedy—stopping the problem now and making up for what’s been lost—mirrors the balance at the heart of tort law: protect property rights, encourage responsible conduct, and restore order when things go off track.

In sum

• What’s “typical”? An injunction is often the most effective, most common remedy for nuisance because it stops the nuisance from continuing.

• What else matters? Damages for harms already suffered, and sometimes both remedies together.

• What should you remember for the Georgia context? The focus is on restoring quiet enjoyment and use of land, with injunctive relief as the primary tool and damages as a robust companion when appropriate.

If you’re thinking about how this plays out in real cases, imagine a scenario where a factory’s emissions create a persistent smell that makes outdoor living uncomfortable for nearby homes. The court would likely order the plant to modify its emissions and vet a plan to reduce odors. That’s the injunction at work. But if neighbors can show that the smell has already reduced property values or caused health-related concerns, damages for those harms might be added to the equation. The result is a practical, multi-layered remedy that both stops the nuisance and makes right what’s already been affected.

So, what’s the bottom line? In nuisance claims, don’t settle for one instrument when two can work together. An injunction to halt ongoing harm, paired with damages where appropriate, typically offers the most complete path back to the peaceful enjoyment of property. It’s a balanced playbook—one that fits the everyday, real-world texture of Georgia land use and the rights that come with it.