Hank owned a secondhand goods store. He often placed merchandise on the sidewalk, sometimes for short intervals, sometimes from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. Pedestrians from time to time stopped and gathered to look at the merchandise. Fred had moved into an apartment which was 70 situated immediately above Hank's store; a street-level stairway entrance was located about 20 feet to the east. On several occasions, Fred had complained to Hank about the situation because not only were his view and peace of mind affected, but his travel on the sidewalk was made more difficult. Fred owned and managed a restaurant two blocks to the west of his apartment and made frequent trips back and forth. There was a back entrance to his apartment through a parking lot; this entrance was about 200 feet farther in walking distance from his restaurant. Once Fred complained to the police, whereupon Hank was arrested under a local ordinance which prohibited the placing of goods or merchandise on public sidewalks and imposed, as its sole sanction, a fine for its violation. One day, the sidewalk in front of Hank's store was unusually cluttered because he was cleaning and mopping the floor of his shop. Fred and his 15-year-old son, Steve, saw a bus they wished to take, and they raced down the stairs and onto the cluttered sidewalk in front of Hank's store, Fred in the lead. While dodging merchandise and people, Fred fell. Steve tripped over him and suffered a broken arm. Fred also suffered broken bones and was unable to attend to his duties for six weeks. If, prior to the day of his personal injuries, Fred had asserted a claim based on public nuisance for injunctive relief against Hank for his obstruction of the sidewalk in violation of the ordinance, the defense on which Hank would have most likely prevailed is that
Fred consented to the obstruction by continuing to rent his apartment. the violation of the ordinance was not unreasonable. remedy of abatement by self-help was adequate. there was no claim for special damage
Question: Hank owned a secondhand goods store. He often placed merchandise on the sidewalk, sometimes for short intervals, sometimes from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. Pedestrians from time to time stopped and gathered to look at the merchandise. Fred had moved into an apartment which was 70 situated immediately above Hank's store; a street-level stairway entrance was located about 20 feet to the east. On several occasions, Fred had complained to Hank about the situation because not only were his view and peace of mind affected, but his travel on the sidewalk was made more difficult. Fred owned and managed a restaurant two blocks to the west of his apartment and made frequent trips back and forth. There was a back entrance to his apartment through a parking lot; this entrance was about 200 feet farther in walking distance from his restaurant. Once Fred complained to the police, whereupon Hank was arrested under a local ordinance which prohibited the placing of goods or merchandise on public sidewalks and imposed, as its sole sanction, a fine for its violation. One day, the sidewalk in front of Hank's store was unusually cluttered because he was cleaning and mopping the floor of his shop. Fred and his 15-year-old son, Steve, saw a bus they wished to take, and they raced down the stairs and onto the cluttered sidewalk in front of Hank's store, Fred in the lead. While dodging merchandise and people, Fred fell. Steve tripped over him and suffered a broken arm. Fred also suffered broken bones and was unable to attend to his duties for six weeks. If, prior to the day of his personal injuries, Fred had asserted a claim based on public nuisance for injunctive relief against Hank for his obstruction of the sidewalk in violation of the ordinance, the defense on which Hank would have most likely prevailed is that
A. Fred consented to the obstruction by continuing to rent his apartment.
B. the violation of the ordinance was not unreasonable.
C. remedy of abatement by self-help was adequate.
D. there was no claim for special damage
Answer: