Biglane v. Under the Hill Corp.

Mississippi Supreme Court
949 So. 2d 9 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A lawful business's operation may constitute a private nuisance if it unreasonably interferes with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. A claim for tortious interference with business relations requires proof of actual damages, and a failure to demonstrate any financial loss is fatal to the claim.

Facts:

In 1967, James and Nancy Biglane purchased a building at 27 Silver Street in the historic Natchez Under-the-Hill district.
In 1973, the building next door at 25 Silver Street was purchased, and in 1975 the Natchez Under the Hill Saloon opened for business there.
The Biglanes operated a gift shop on the lower level of their building starting in 1978 and later began converting the upper floors into a large apartment.
In 2002, the Biglanes moved into their completed apartment.
After moving in, the Biglanes found their ability to sleep and enjoy their home was disrupted by loud live music, conversation, and other noise from the Saloon, particularly on weekends.
The Biglanes complained to the Saloon, which took mitigating steps including dismissing a particularly loud band, installing thick windows, and using a sound meter.
Still dissatisfied with the noise levels, the Biglanes blocked off two nearby parking lots used by Saloon patrons, one of which included public, city-owned property.

Procedural Posture:

James M. and Nancy K. Biglane filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Adams County, Mississippi (a trial court), against Under The Hill Corporation, alleging private nuisance.
Under The Hill Corporation filed a counterclaim against the Biglanes for tortious interference with business relations.
The chancery court found that the Saloon constituted a private nuisance and issued an injunction ordering it to keep its doors and windows closed when amplified music was playing.
The chancery court also found that the Biglanes tortiously interfered with the Saloon's business and, after voiding an initial punitive damages award, assessed $500 in nominal damages against them.
The Biglanes, as appellants, appealed the judgment of tortious interference and the damage award to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Under The Hill Corporation, as appellee, cross-appealed the finding that its operation was a private nuisance.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

First, does a saloon's loud music and patron noise, which substantially interferes with a neighboring resident's ability to sleep and enjoy their home, constitute a private nuisance, even if the saloon is a long-established, lawful business in a historic entertainment district? Second, do a landowner's actions of blocking parking areas to disrupt a neighboring business constitute tortious interference with business relations if the business cannot prove it suffered any actual financial loss as a result?

Opinions:

Majority - Diaz, J.

Yes as to the first issue; No as to the second. A lawful business can become a private nuisance if it unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighboring property. A claim for tortious interference with business relations fails as a matter of law without proof of actual damages. For the first issue, the court found that even a lawful and long-standing business like the Saloon can become a nuisance if its operations, such as loud music, render the enjoyment of a neighbor's property 'materially uncomfortable and annoying.' The evidence showed Mrs. Biglane often had to sleep elsewhere on weekends due to the noise. The trial court's injunction, requiring the Saloon to keep doors and windows closed during live music, was an appropriate equitable remedy that balanced the interests of both parties. For the second issue, the court analyzed the four-part test for tortious interference with business relations. Although the Biglanes acted 'without right or justifiable cause' by blocking city-owned property, the Saloon's claim failed on the fourth element: 'actual damage and loss resulted.' The Saloon conceded it could not demonstrate any loss of income and that its business had actually increased. Because actual, not nominal, damages are a required element of this specific tort, the claim must fail.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the flexible, balancing approach courts take in private nuisance cases, preferring tailored injunctions over shutting down established businesses. More significantly, it establishes a bright-line rule in Mississippi that a claim for tortious interference with business relations requires proof of actual, compensatory damages. By rejecting nominal damages as a substitute, the court raises the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs, requiring concrete proof of financial harm to sustain such a claim. This clarification protects defendants from liability where a plaintiff's business suffers no tangible loss from the defendant's intentional acts.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Biglane v. Under the Hill Corp. (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"