Clinic & Hospital, Inc. v. McConnell
236 S.W.2d 384, 241 Mo. App. 223 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The operation of a lawful business may be enjoined as a private nuisance if its use of property is unreasonable and substantially impairs the right of another to the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property, especially where the affected party is a pre-existing, sensitive-use entity like a hospital.
Facts:
- Since 1925, McCleary Clinic and Hospital (plaintiff) has operated its facility in a business district in Excelsior Springs, Missouri.
- In November 1947, Richard and Marguerite McConnell (defendants) opened the 'Tune In' music shop across the street from the hospital.
- In February 1948, the McConnells installed a loudspeaker in their shop's front window, aimed in the general direction of the hospital, to broadcast recorded music for advertising purposes.
- The music was played nearly continuously every day from morning until evening, and frequently as late as 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.
- The music was distinctly audible inside the hospital's main building, including its operating and post-operative recovery rooms, above the normal sounds of street traffic.
- Hospital staff and physicians observed that the music made patients nervous and restless, retarded their recovery, necessitated additional sedatives for some, and caused some patients to leave the hospital prematurely.
- The hospital's president, B.C. Hedges, spoke with the McConnells on two occasions, explaining the harm the music was causing patients and requesting they reduce the volume, but the broadcasting continued without substantial change.
- After the McConnells installed new sound equipment, the music, though perhaps at a lower volume, remained audible in the hospital and continued to generate complaints from patients.
Procedural Posture:
- McCleary Clinic and Hospital (plaintiff) filed a suit for an injunction against Richard and Marguerite McConnell (defendants) in the circuit court of Clay County, Missouri.
- Upon the defendants' application for a change of venue, the case was transferred to the circuit court of Clinton County.
- The trial court (circuit court of Clinton County) conducted a trial and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, the McConnells.
- The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- The plaintiff, McCleary Clinic and Hospital, appealed the trial court's judgment.
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 continuous playing of amplified music from a commercial storefront constitute an enjoinable nuisance when it is audible within an adjacent hospital and is shown to disturb patients and retard their recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Bour, C.
Yes. The continuous broadcasting of amplified music constitutes an enjoinable nuisance because it is an unreasonable use of property that substantially invades the hospital's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its property. A court of equity may enjoin the use of property or a manner of carrying on a business if it constitutes a nuisance injuring another. While noise is not a nuisance per se, it can become one depending on the circumstances, such as locality, character of the surroundings, and the nature of the harm involved. Here, the hospital was established long before the music shop began broadcasting. The music was not a typical noise of the business district but a unique and substantial interference. Given that clinics and hospitals are essential to society, a substantial interference with their operation is a serious harm. The defendants' broadcasting, with its documented harmful effects on patients, was an unusual, unreasonable, and unlawful use of their property in this specific location, justifying an injunction.
Analysis:
This case is a classic application of private nuisance doctrine, illustrating that a lawful business can be conducted in an unlawful manner. The decision emphasizes the context-dependent, balancing nature of the 'reasonableness' standard, weighing the utility of the defendant's conduct against the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff. It demonstrates that while 'coming to the nuisance' is not an absolute defense, priority of occupation is a significant factor in evaluating the character of a locality. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts will protect sensitive uses, like hospitals, from substantial interference and will tailor injunctive relief to abate the specific harm without shutting down the offending business entirely.
