7

The xkcd comic from February 17, 2024, titled "Treasure Chests," jokingly presents a proposal to increase a lawn care firm's business:

(A character in a black hat is holding a treasure chest in one hand and pointing with a stick to a poster that features a shovel at the top, three circled X's below it, and five question marks around them.) "First, I'll fill three of these chests with $1,000 each in small silver and gold coins, and take videos of them being buried in unidentified lawns around town. Next year, I post the videos. Then we sit back and let the local kids do the rest. (Caption below the panel:) The proposal for creating business for our lawn care company was unorthodox but extremely effective. (Transcript courtesy of explainxkcd.com contributors)

Assume that one had permission to bury the three chests in the respective lawns, and the posts contained nothing but the videos. The intention of the acts, as evidenced by the proposal, was secret at the time but not denied by the relevant entities upon investigation. As stated in the cartoon, the campaign was effective in leading children to damage some lawns, which resulted in greater profits for the business. The damage may have been caused by children to their parents' lawns or to lawns belonging to unrelated people if that makes a difference.

Would such a scheme be illegal?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

It would be a novel application, but this could be the tort of public nuisance: an unreasonable interference with public rights (in this case, property rights of those whose lawns did not have chests buried in them). One would have to prove causation, as well as interference (so it would not be enough if owners or their children dug up their own lawn).

Public nuisance law is a bit of a mess, and states have adopted various differing precise definitions, but at common law:

A line of public nuisance cases involves an aggregation of private nuisances in a sufficiently large number to be treated as a public nuisance. But it is important to recognise that private nuisance involves unreasonable interference with the rights to use and enjoy property rights.

Valeant Canada LP/Valeant Canada S.E.C. v. British Columbia, 2022 BCCA 366, para. 182

Intention is irrelevant for both private and public nuisance.

Improve this answer
2
  • But they had permission from the property owners. Why would it be illegal if they had permission?
    – Michael Hall
    Commented Feb 17 at 19:23
  • 2
    I have no idea whether this is correct in Canada, but I'm confident the analysis would look very different in the United States, where the First Amendment would erect major barriers to any imposing any liability.
    – bdb484
    Commented Feb 17 at 20:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .