Unconventional Neighborhood Damages

Abstract

The research examined the culpability for atypical neighborhood damages via the lens of the theory of misuse of rights. This research aims to reconcile the owner's entitlement to utilize their land as they see fit with the neighbor's right to enjoy their property free from unwarranted damage. This research initially delineates the legal basis of a neighbor's duty for damages and investigates the origins of this liability, while elucidating the notion of atypical neighborhood damages as harms that surpass the typical limits of property usage and inflict genuine pain on the neighbor. The research delineates the criteria for proving culpability, including excessive usage, the presence of atypical injury, and the causal relationship between the excessive action and the resultant damage.

The study investigates the legal foundation for this liability, highlighting that contemporary civil laws typically depend on the principle of abuse of rights, while Islamic law articulates it through overarching maxims such as “no harm and no reciprocating harm” (lā ḍarar wa-lā ḍirār) and “harm must be removed.” The study examines legal remedies for atypical neighborhood harms, including recompense, remediation of the harm, or stoppage of the detrimental act, in the context of comparative legislation and Islamic jurisprudence. Furthermore, it delineates the protocols for initiating a civil responsibility suit, including the parties involved (plaintiff and defendant), the appropriate court, and the methods for substantiating and disputing the damages.

The research reveals that the legal foundation for atypical neighborhood damages has sparked significant discussion among jurists and legal practitioners, leading some to embrace a certain perspective only to subsequently renounce it owing to inconsistencies with their originally accepted norms.