What must be balanced in determining whether an injunction is appropriate for a nuisance?

In determining whether an injunction is appropriate for a nuisance, the key consideration is the balance between the social utility of the defendant’s actions and the harm caused to the plaintiff. This approach acknowledges that while a defendant may be engaging in behavior that serves a valuable or beneficial purpose for society (social utility), it is crucial to weigh that against the degree of harm or injury being inflicted upon the plaintiff.

Courts are often tasked with finding a middle ground—recognizing that certain activities may contribute positively to the community but could simultaneously impose unreasonable burdens or damages on an individual or a small group. If the harm inflicted on the plaintiff is deemed significant and outweighs the social utility of the defendant's actions, an injunction may be warranted to provide relief to the plaintiff and effectively mitigate the nuisance.

This balancing act helps ensure that the judicial remedy is fair and just, considering both the interests of the community and the rights of the individual adversely affected by the nuisance. By focusing on this equity of social utility versus harm, courts can make informed decisions that aim to resolve disputes in a balanced manner.