Blue Ink, Ltd. v. Two Farms, Inc.
218 Md.App. 77, 2014 WL 3736530, 96 A.3d 810 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a private nuisance, a plaintiff must prove the defendant's interference with their property is both substantial and unreasonable, and that the resulting harm is objectively unreasonable to a person of ordinary sensibilities. The law does not protect plaintiffs who are abnormally sensitive or whose property is used for an exceptionally delicate trade that requires special freedom from interference.
Facts:
- Bengies Drive-In, operated by Blue Ink, Ltd., is a drive-in movie theater that has been in business since the late 1950s in an area that has become commercially developed.
- The area surrounding Bengies includes other businesses such as a Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and Home Depot.
- In December 2008, Two Farms, Inc. opened a Royal Farms convenience store and gas station across a heavily-traveled road from Bengies.
- The lighting plan for the Royal Farms was reviewed and approved by Baltimore County officials, who concluded it would be fine for the drive-in.
- The lights used by Royal Farms are typical commercial lights for a gas station and convenience store and are not aimed or directed at the Bengies property.
- The operator of Bengies, D. Edward Vogel, admitted that a drive-in theater is a unique business with a special sensitivity to light and that the lights would likely not bother an ordinary business.
- Bengies' profits had increased annually, and it had not received any customer complaints regarding the lights from the Royal Farms.
Procedural Posture:
- Blue Ink, Ltd. (Bengies) sued Two Farms, Inc. (Royal Farms) in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, alleging private nuisance.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Bengies and awarded $838,000 in damages.
- Royal Farms filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV), asking the trial judge to set aside the jury's verdict as legally insufficient.
- The Circuit Court granted the Motion for JNOV, vacated the jury's verdict, and entered judgment in favor of Royal Farms.
- Bengies, as the Appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's order granting the JNOV to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the ordinary, lawful commercial lighting of a convenience store constitute a private nuisance to an adjacent drive-in movie theater when the theater has a hypersensitive use of its property requiring darkness and the lights would not interfere with an ordinary business?
Opinions:
Majority - Leahy, J.
No. The convenience store's ordinary commercial lighting does not constitute a private nuisance because a claim for private nuisance requires that the harm be objectively reasonable to a person of ordinary sensibilities, and the law does not protect hypersensitive uses of property. The court reasoned that a nuisance must be a substantial and unreasonable interference, and the standard for determining this is objective. Bengies, as a drive-in theater, represents an 'exceptionally delicate trade' that is 'abnormally sensitive' to light. The evidence showed that Royal Farms' lighting was lawful, typical for its business type, and would not have interfered with an ordinary business. Because Bengies could not demonstrate that the lights would be a nuisance to a business of ordinary sensitivity, and presented no evidence of complaints from patrons, its claim failed as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens the hypersensitive plaintiff doctrine within private nuisance law, especially as applied to non-traditional interferences like light. It establishes a strong precedent that lawful, customary commercial activities will not be enjoined or give rise to damages merely because they affect a neighboring business with unique operational requirements. The ruling makes it significantly more challenging for businesses with special sensitivities, such as outdoor theaters, observatories, or certain laboratories, to succeed in nuisance claims against neighbors engaged in standard commercial or residential conduct. It solidifies the principle that the balancing of property interests in nuisance law is based on an objective standard of ordinary use and enjoyment.
