Dittman v. Repp
50 Md. 516, 1879 Md. LEXIS 21 (1879)
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may enjoin an existing or threatened nuisance if the injury materially diminishes the value of a property as a dwelling, seriously interferes with its ordinary comfort and enjoyment, and would entitle the aggrieved party to substantial damages at law. The determination of whether noise and vibration constitute a nuisance depends on whether, in the judgment of reasonable persons, it produces actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities and is unreasonable considering the locality, the nature of the trade, the character of the machinery, and the manner of its use.
Facts:
- The complainant and the defendants occupy adjoining premises on Bond Street in Baltimore.
- The defendants are brewers and carry on the business of brewing beer in their premises.
- The defendants recently changed the manner of conducting their business and introduced formidable steam machinery.
- The machinery, with its pipes and attachments, was placed alongside and in direct contact with the wall of the complainant's building.
- The use of this new machinery causes a continual loud and deafening noise throughout the complainant's entire premises.
- The noise is of extraordinary force and volume, producing a heavy jarring sound that is disagreeable and offensive to the complainant and his family.
- The operation of the machinery produces continual vibration and jarring in all apartments of the complainant's house, shaking the walls.
- The noise and vibrations render the complainant's house unfit and unsafe to reside in.
Procedural Posture:
- The complainant filed a bill (a formal complaint) in a court of equity (the trial court) seeking an injunction against the defendants.
- The trial court granted the injunction.
- The defendants appealed the order granting the injunction to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the highest court of the state).
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 continuous loud noise and strong vibrations from steam machinery, even in a commercial and manufacturing city, constitute a restrainable nuisance when it causes actual physical discomfort, shakes a complainant's house, and renders it unfit and unsafe for habitation, thus unreasonably interfering with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Alvey, J.
Yes, continuous loud noise and strong vibrations from steam machinery, even in a commercial and manufacturing city, can constitute a restrainable nuisance when they cause actual physical discomfort, render a dwelling unfit for habitation, and unreasonably interfere with a person's enjoyment of their property. The Court affirmed that a court of equity will interfere by injunction to restrain a nuisance if the injury is of such a character as to materially diminish the value of a property as a dwelling, seriously interfere with its ordinary comfort and enjoyment, and would entitle the complainant to substantial damages at law, citing Adams v. Michael. The allegations of a continual loud and deafening noise of extraordinary force and volume, producing a heavy jarring sound, and causing strong vibratory and jarring motions that shake the complainant’s house and render it unfit and unsafe for habitation, are sufficient to warrant relief. While a party dwelling in a crowded commercial and manufacturing city cannot claim the same quiet as in the country and must expect some inconveniences (as noted by Lord Chancellor Westbury in Tipping v. St. Helen’s Smelting Co.), there is a limit. Noise alone can be a nuisance if it produces actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibility. Here, the noise is compounded by strong vibratory and jarring motions, which clearly amount to an enjoinable nuisance.
Analysis:
This case is significant for reinforcing the principle that even legitimate business operations in urban or industrial areas are not absolutely immune from nuisance claims. It establishes that while residents in such localities must tolerate a certain degree of annoyance, there is a limit. When business activities produce excessive noise and vibration that cause actual physical discomfort or render a dwelling unfit for habitation for a person of ordinary sensibilities, it crosses a threshold of unreasonableness, warranting equitable intervention. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in balancing commercial interests with the fundamental right to peaceful and safe enjoyment of one's home.
