In, Cohen v. Perrino,[i] the court held that a lawful act is not actionable even if it proceeds from a malicious motive. The court observed that, a property owner is entitled to build a wall on his/her ground to protect one’s privacy, even if that obstructs and closes the windows of an adjoining owner.  In Cohen, the land owner erected a brick wall on his land.  The wall was higher than the wall of the adjoining owner’s house and completely obstructed his first floor window.  The court held that the landowner is entitled to build a wall entirely upon his property even if it obstruct and close adjoining owner’s window.  There is no easement of light and air for the window in the wall.  And the landowner is not liable even if his act proceeded from a malicious motive.  In, Koblegard v. Hale,[ii] the court observed, one is not liable for erection of a fence upon one’s land even if there is negative motive and erection deprives adjoining land of light and air.

Under the modern American rule, one may not erect a structure for the sole purpose of annoying his neighbor.  No man has a legal right to make a malicious use of his property for damaging his neighbor’s property.[iii] In, Haugen v. Kottas,[iv] the Montana Supreme Court overruled earlier decisions and held that, “no property owner has the right to erect and maintain an otherwise useless structure for the sole purpose of injuring his neighbor.  Such an action will give rise to an action for both injunctive relief and damages.”  In, Sundowner, Inc. v. King,[v] the court held that, no property owner has the right to erect and maintain an otherwise useless structure for the sole purpose of injuring his neighbor.  The court further observed that this rule is applicable only to structures which serve no useful purpose and which are erected for the sole purpose of injuring adjoining property owners.

In, Hibbard v. Halliday,[vi] the court observed “at common law no actionable wrong can arise, unless there has been some invasion of another’s right; and the owner of land has a right to make any reasonable use of his property without liability for any loss there may flow to his neighbor from such use; and a lawful act cannot be actionable, though it proceeded from a malicious motive.”  In, Hibbard the court held that, no one has an exclusive right in air or light except as the same may exist or be confined on his or her own premises.  Common law has not permitted a person to be deprived of light or air for the mere gratification of malice.

[i] Cohen v. Perrino, 355 Pa. 455 (Pa. 1947)

[ii] Koblegard v. Hale, 60 W. Va. 37 (W. Va. 1906)

[iii] Haugen v. Kottas, 2001 MT 274 (Mont. 2001)

[iv] Id.

[v] Sundowner, Inc. v. King, 95 Idaho 367 (Idaho 1973)

[vi]Hibbard v. Halliday, 58 Okla. 244 (Okla. 1916)