kill him

step 1) poop in a bag
step 2) put bag in front of his door
step 3) set fire to bag
step 4) ring doorbell/knock really loudly
step 5) run

hilarity ensues... or burns down the building... either way, you get him back

I'm not sure. I guess it's going through the walls. It smells the worst in my bathroom. So through the pipes?! I don't know.

Unfortunately that solution will not cause him any type of bodily injury (unless he's allergic to my smoke).

Nuisance is defined as the unlawful and unreasonable interference with the
enjoyment of the property of another (in other words, someone creates a condition that is
obnoxious to his neighbor). This tort protects the landowner’s right to quiet enjoyment
(use) of his property. It is not necessary to have a physical invasion in order to establish
the tort of nuisance. Rather, the disturbance is often noises or odors.
Nuisances may be of two types: (1) public or (2) private. A public nuisance is
one that affects a large group of members of the public, not necessarily their land. An
action to abate (correct) a public nuisance must be brought by a governmental agency,
and, in addition to the civil suit, the government could also bring criminal charges against
the wrongdoer. A public nuisance is not generally considered a tort.
A private nuisance involves a particular injury to a specific individual landowner.
In this case, the suit against the wrongdoer may be brought by the affected individual. If
he can establish that his enjoyment of his property was significantly diminished, he may
recover monetary damages and/or injunctive relief. Private nuisances may be brought
2
under any of the three tort theories (strict liability, intentional tort, negligence) that we
studied. Most nuisance suits are based upon a theory of intentional tort. A nuisance may
begin as a negligent act; however, once a neighboring landowner objects to the activity
and the person creating the nuisance refuses to stop, the activity becomes intentional.
Example: Elvis is in his apartment playing his guitar. Nate lives in the apartment next
door and tells Elvis to stop. Elvis refuses. If Elvis' music is a nuisance then the tort has
become intentional.
A nuisance may be both public and private if a large group is affected and, in
addition, some individuals are injured in unique ways. This depends on the facts of the
specific case, and because of the difficulty involved in determining those facts, courts and
attorneys do not always distinguish between public and private nuisances.
There are several nuisance theories on which private nuisance claims can be
based. The first is strict liability. If the activity of the wrongdoer or the conditions are
abnormally dangerous, he can be held strictly liable for resulting injuries, even if he was
not negligent. A second nuisance theory is intentional interference with another’s
enjoyment. This is the most frequently used basis for nuisance suits. The intentional
interference must also be considered to be unreasonable (i.e., (a) the gravity of the harm
outweighs the utility of the conduct or (b) the harm caused is serious and the cost to
compensate for it makes the conduct not feasible). A third nuisance theory is negligence,
where all of the elements must be present: (1) existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty,
(3) causation in fact and proximate causation, and (4) actual damages.
The courts have found different remedies for private nuisances, based on the
circumstances. One remedy is an injunction (the correction of the condition) which is an
appropriate remedy when the condition is one that can be changed. This is also called
“abatement.” If the condition cannot be abated, the plaintiff will seek monetary damages
for the loss of his property value due to the permanent nature of the nuisance. The court
has the flexibility to impose both remedies if it finds that to be appropriate for the
particular circumstances.
In deciding whether to enjoin a nuisance or award monetary damages, the court
often balances hardships and benefits. Once a nuisance is determined, then the court
must find an appropriate remedy. The North Carolina Court of Appeals distinguished
between the two balancing tests (unreasonable interference and remedy) by looking at the
consequences of the defendant’s actions versus the unreasonableness of the defendant’s
actions themselves. Where the plaintiff is not without fault it is possible that the plaintiff
may be forced to pay part or all of the cost of abating the nuisance.

Legally, the term “nuisance” is traditionally used in three ways:

* 1) to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (e.g., indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney)
* 2) to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (e.g., loud noises or objectionable odors)
* 3) to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two[2]. However, the “interference” was not the result of a neighbor stealing land or trespassing on the land. Instead, it arose from activities taking place on another person’s land that affected the enjoyment of that land[3].

I return from retirement to bring you this: