When Jones walked over to the Colt house to complain, they set the dog on her and she narrowly missed being bitten, falling down in her panic and because of her recent hip surgery. She returned home in a complete panic and developed a nervous tic and paranoid about leaving her home
The major issues raised in this case would be (a) nuisance (b) harassment (c) assault and (d) intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as (e) criminal destruction of property. The first issue arises because of the noisy parties at nights, with bright lights in the backyard and during the day, the children trying to send their balls into Jones’ birdbath. The harassment arises because of the way the Colts responded to her request to stop the nuisance activities with the threat to unleash their dog on her. The assault issue arises because the dog Sirius did indeed attack her and would have quite likely caused actual physical harm if it had not been distracted by another dog. As it is, the dog caused injuries because Jones fell down and hurt her hip that had recent surgery. The intentional infliction of emotional distress arises because of the way the Colts responded to her grievances, with animosity and an attitude of conflict rather than amity and cooperation. The last issue of criminal destruction of property arises because of the fence the Colts built that impeded the access to sunlight of the plants in Jones’ garden.
The rule on nuisance would assess how much disturbance was caused to the Plaintiff and whether this could be deemed intrusive of her right to peace and privacy. The rule on harassment requires the plaintiff to demonstrate externally that there were hurt or injured feelings arising out of the harassment. In a case of assault, the balance would be between the forseeability of harm against the burden of preventive measures.