Under what circumstance would 'coming to the nuisance' not be an effective defense?

The defense of "coming to the nuisance" is a principle in tort law that is often invoked in disputes involving private nuisance. It suggests that if a property owner moves to an area that is already known to have a nuisance, they cannot later complain about it. However, this defense may not apply in situations where the plaintiff is hypersensitive.

If the plaintiff's sensitivity is excessive—meaning that a typical person would not be adversely impacted by the nuisance—then the defense of coming to the nuisance might not hold. Courts recognize that a nuisance must be measured by the impact on an ordinary person, and if a plaintiff experiences significant harm more than what would be reasonably expected, their claim for nuisance might still be viable despite the fact that they moved to the vicinity after the nuisance was established.

In contrast, when the nuisance affects public property, it typically raises concerns that extend beyond the private interests of individuals and may subject the responsible party to liability regardless of whether the plaintiff arrived later. Similarly, if the defendant did not create the nuisance, that circumstance could negate the efficacy of the defense because it was not their actions that caused the disturbance. The identity of the defendant as a business entity does not inherently affect the application of the defense either.