Escobar v. Continental Baking Co.
596 N.E.2d 394, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 104 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages may be awarded for a nuisance even when the utility of the defendant's conduct outweighs the gravity of the harm, but only if it is reasonable to shift the cost of the harm to the defendant based on factors including the character of the locality, priority in time, and the plaintiff's knowledge when they acquired the property.
Facts:
- The defendant, Continental Baking Company, operates a bakery distribution center on Purchase Street in New Bedford, a long-established commercial and noisy area.
- The defendant's building has been used for the baking industry since 1915, and the defendant has operated there since 1926.
- To ensure product freshness, the defendant conducts truck and tractor-trailer deliveries between midnight and 7:00 a.m., a schedule that has been in effect since at least 1963.
- In 1977, the plaintiffs purchased an adjacent residential property for a price that reflected its location next to the defendant's business.
- The plaintiffs knew there was a bakery business next door when they bought their property.
- The noise from the defendant's nighttime deliveries interfered with the plaintiffs' sleep.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed an action in the Superior Court against the defendant, Continental Baking Company.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the defendant's nighttime truck deliveries.
- The Superior Court judge denied the injunction, finding that the utility of the defendant's conduct outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs.
- Despite denying the injunction, the judge awarded the plaintiffs $36,000 in damages for past, present, and future nuisance affecting their sleep.
- The defendant appealed the monetary damages award to the Appeals Court.
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 a defendant's socially useful conduct, which does not warrant an injunction, still constitute a nuisance for which damages may be awarded when the plaintiffs knowingly purchased property in a commercial area adjacent to the defendant's long-standing business operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Dreben, J.
No, the defendant's conduct does not constitute a nuisance for which damages may be awarded under these circumstances. While a court may award damages for a nuisance even when an injunction is denied, it is not reasonable to impose those costs on the defendant in this case. The court's decision is based on several factors: the neighborhood is and has long been commercial and industrial; the defendant's operations pre-existed the plaintiffs' arrival by decades; and the plaintiffs 'came to the nuisance' by knowingly purchasing property at a price that reflected the existing commercial activity. As stated in precedent, 'No one can move into a quarter given over to foundries and boiler shops and demand the quiet of a farm.' Therefore, it would be unfair to shift the cost of the harm from the plaintiffs, who knowingly accepted the conditions, to the defendant, who was operating a socially useful business in a manner consistent with the area's character.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'coming to the nuisance' doctrine in the context of modern nuisance law, which allows for damages even when an injunction is inappropriate. The court adopts the flexible Restatement (Second) of Torts approach but demonstrates that 'priority in time' and the character of the locality remain powerful, if not dispositive, factors. The decision signals that plaintiffs who knowingly purchase property in established industrial or commercial zones will face a very high hurdle to recover nuisance damages from pre-existing businesses. It reinforces the idea that property values and expectations are set by the existing environment, and courts are reluctant to allow subsequent purchasers to disrupt established, socially useful economic activities.
Unlock the full brief for Escobar v. Continental Baking Co.