The way in which this process of retesting and reformulating works, may be followed in an example. Fifty years ago, I think it would have been stated as a general principle that A. may conduct his business as he pleases, even though the purpose is to cause loss to B., unless the act involves the creation of a nuisance. [1] Spite fences were the stock illustration, and the exemption from liability in such circumstances was supposed to illustrate not the exception, but the rule. [2]
Such a rule may have been an adequate working principle to regulate the relations between individuals or classes in a simple or homogeneous community. With the growing complexity of social relations, its inadequacy was revealed. As particular controversies multiplied and the attempt was made to test them by the
- ↑ Cooley, "Torts," 1st ed., p. 93; Pollock, "Torts," 10th ed., p. 21.
- ↑ Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 N. Y. 39; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. 368.
