Gallagher v. H v. Pierhomes, LLC
957 A.2d 628, 182 Md. App. 94, 2008 Md. App. LEXIS 118 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Maryland courts apply the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519 and 520 to determine strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, requiring a multi-factor analysis that emphasizes the appropriateness of the activity to its location, and will not extend strict liability to pile driving operations causing minor property damage in an appropriate urban waterfront area. Additionally, for nuisance claims, the interference must be substantial and unreasonable, affecting a normal person for private nuisance, or an interest common to the general public for public nuisance.
Facts:
- Michela Gallagher owned a home at 423 East Hamburg Street in Baltimore, built shortly before the War of 1812.
- Beginning in 1997, Gallagher lived in the home without experiencing pile driving in the area.
- HV Pierhomes, LLC and HV Development & Contracting Co. (the defendants) undertook a project to construct waterfront townhomes at the Baltimore Inner Harbor, 325 feet from Gallagher's residence.
- The construction required driving piles into the Inner Harbor to replace existing piers at the former Key Highway Shipyard, which had operated there for decades and was previously built on piles.
- Permits for the project were obtained from federal, state, and city authorities after a two-year process, and geotechnical studies were conducted.
- Pile driving occurred periodically between September 2003 and October 2004, causing vibrations that Gallagher testified she heard and felt in her home.
- Soon after the pile driving began, cracks developed in Gallagher's plaster walls and other portions of her home, ceasing once the pile driving was completed.
- Engineers continuously monitored vibrations using seismic stations and geophones, and only one recorded vibration exceeded established limits.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 14, 2005, Michela Gallagher sued HV Pierhomes, LLC and HV Development & Contracting Co. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
- On December 21, 2005, Gallagher filed an amended complaint, abandoning her initial negligence claim, proceeding on claims for strict liability and public and private nuisance.
- The case proceeded to trial on December 15, 2006.
- Following the presentation of Gallagher’s case, the defendants moved for judgment, but the circuit court reserved its decision.
- After the defendants presented their case, they renewed their motion for judgment, and the circuit court again reserved its decision, allowing the case to go to the jury.
- The circuit court allowed the jury to decide causation, but reserved for itself the decision on whether the activity was abnormally dangerous.
- On December 21, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in Gallagher’s favor, finding that pile driving caused damage to her home, created a public nuisance, and created a private nuisance, awarding her $55,189.14 in damages.
- After the jury’s verdict, the defendants renewed their motions for judgment.
- By Order entered on August 20, 2007, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on all claims.
- Gallagher (appellant) timely noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.
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 pile driving in an urban waterfront area, which causes property damage to a nearby residential home, constitute an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability, or create a public or private nuisance under Maryland law?
Opinions:
Majority - Ronald Rubin
No, pile driving in an urban waterfront area, even if it causes minor property damage to a nearby home, does not automatically constitute an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability, nor does it create a public or private nuisance under Maryland law, when conducted reasonably in an appropriate locale. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that pile driving in the Baltimore Inner Harbor was not an abnormally dangerous activity. Applying the six factors from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520, the court found: (a) the risk of harm (minor cracks in a 200-year-old home) was not 'high in degree'; (b) the likelihood of great harm was not shown, as the house was not rendered structurally unsound; (c) risks could be managed with ordinary care and monitoring, as evidenced by the defendants' conservative vibratory limits and monitoring; (d) while not common usage for average citizens, the activity had a narrow construction of common usage as used in Yommer; (e) the activity was appropriate to the Baltimore waterfront, an area with a long history of pile driving and pier construction, and could not be characterized as 'unusual, excessive, extravagant, or bizarre' (Yommer, Kirby, Rosenblatt); and (f) the redevelopment had significant economic and cultural value to the community, outweighing its dangerous attributes. The court rejected the appellant's argument that pile driving should be strictly liable simply because it produces uncontrollable vibrations, distinguishing it from blasting cases where damage is caused by flying debris. Regarding nuisance, the court found insufficient evidence for both private and public nuisance. For private nuisance, the court stated the defendants' activity was reasonable in time, place, manner, and duration, and did not cause a 'substantial and unreasonable' interference with Gallagher’s use and enjoyment of her property that would be offensive or inconvenient to a 'normal person' (Exxon Corp. v. Yarema, Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. CAE-Link Corp.). For public nuisance, the court found the evidence insufficient to show an interference with an 'interest common to the general public,' rather than peculiar to Gallagher alone (Tadjer v. Montgomery County).
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities and nuisance claims in Maryland, particularly in the context of urban development and construction. It underscores the importance of the 'appropriateness of the activity to the place' factor in the Restatement § 520 analysis, suggesting that construction methods vital to urban redevelopment in historically industrial or waterfront areas are less likely to be deemed abnormally dangerous. Future cases will likely rely on this ruling to defend construction-related vibrations, emphasizing proper monitoring and the public benefit of such projects, making it harder for individual property owners to assert strict liability or nuisance claims for minor damages in similar contexts.
