Burgess v. Omahawks Radio Control Organization
219 Neb. 100, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 887, 362 N.W.2d 27 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether noise constitutes a private nuisance is determined by an objective standard based on its effect on a normal person of ordinary habits and sensibilities. To be enjoined, the annoyance must be such that it would cause actual physical discomfort to an ordinary, reasonable person, not merely subjective discomfort to a particular plaintiff.
Facts:
- Omahawks Radio Control Organization (Omahawks), a nonprofit corporation, leased 160 acres of rural land from Louise Field Prugh to operate a flying site for radio-controlled model aircraft.
- The club established and strictly enforced noise abatement rules, including mandatory mufflers and specific flying hours.
- In August 1981, Robert H. Burgess and Maria Burgess purchased a residence near the Omahawks' flying site.
- The designated flight pattern for the model aircraft kept the planes between four and six blocks away from the Burgess's property.
- The Burgesses claimed the high-frequency humming sound from the aircraft caused them severe physical and mental distress, including depression, insomnia, anxiety, and nausea.
- An audiologist conducted a noise study which measured the sound level near the Burgess's home at approximately 30 decibels, comparable to a whisper.
- The study also found that a tractor operating 600 feet away was 35% louder than the model aircraft at a similar distance.
- Other neighbors who lived closer to the flight pattern testified that while they could hear the aircraft, the noise did not bother them and was less annoying than other rural sounds like tractors and motorcycles.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert H. Burgess and Maria Burgess filed an action against Omahawks Radio Control Organization and Louise Field Prugh in a Nebraska trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging private noise nuisance and violation of city zoning ordinances.
- Following a trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' petition.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 noise produced by a radio-controlled model aircraft club's flying activities constitute a private nuisance when it is audible to neighboring property owners and causes them subjective annoyance and alleged health problems?
Opinions:
Majority - White, J.
No. The noise produced by the radio-controlled model aircraft club does not constitute a private nuisance. To justify the abatement of a claimed nuisance, the annoyance must be substantial enough to cause actual physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities, which is an objective standard. Here, the court weighed the plaintiffs' subjective complaints against objective evidence. An expert's sound study revealed the noise level at the plaintiffs' residence was very low (30 decibels), and other nearby residents testified they were not bothered by the sound. Considering the character, volume, frequency, and locality of the noise, the court concluded that while it was annoying to the plaintiffs, it did not rise to the level of an enjoinable nuisance under the objective 'reasonable person' standard. The court did, however, find that the trial court erred in failing to decide the separate issue of whether the club's activities violated local zoning ordinances and remanded that portion of the case for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the application of an objective standard in private noise nuisance claims, emphasizing that a plaintiff's subjective hypersensitivity is insufficient grounds for an injunction. The decision highlights the judiciary's reliance on objective evidence, such as scientific noise measurements and the testimony of other community members, to determine reasonableness. It establishes that for a lawful activity to be considered a nuisance, the interference with the enjoyment of property must be substantial and unreasonable to a person of ordinary sensibilities, not just to the specific complaining party. This precedent sets a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in noise nuisance cases, requiring them to prove the noise is objectively offensive, not just personally annoying.
