Gorman v. Sabo
122 A.2d 475, 210 Md. 155, 1956 Md. LEXIS 448 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private nuisance involving noise that causes physical discomfort and annoyance to those of ordinary sensibilities, seriously interfering with the comfortable use and enjoyment of their homes, can entitle the offended parties to compensatory and punitive damages. A property owner who actively participates in the continuance of such a nuisance, even if not the sole creator, can be held liable.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Sabo and their four children moved in next door to Mr. and Mrs. Gorman, who also had children.
- Trouble arose between the children, which led to Mrs. Gorman developing ill will toward the Sabo family.
- In late summer or fall of 1952, Mrs. Gorman began a deliberate and calculated effort to harass and annoy the Sabo family by repeatedly turning up her radio to an excessive and highly unreasonable volume, beaming the sound directly from a second-floor west window into the east side of the Sabo house for hours each day over a period of several years.
- Mrs. Gorman also ordered her children to beat with sticks and stones on metal furniture and cans at strategic times to annoy the Sabo children and Mrs. Sabo.
- Mrs. Gorman told various neighbors, sometimes in Mr. Gorman's presence, that she intended to make the Sabos move and wished them serious harm.
- Mr. Sabo complained to Mr. Gorman approximately five times about the noise, but it continued; on at least one occasion, Mr. Gorman himself turned up the radio at his wife’s command.
- As a result of the incessant noise, life became miserable for the Sabos, their children could not sleep, and Mrs. Sabo suffered from an actual illness due to the constant harassment.
- Neighbors testified that it was impossible to carry on a conversation in the Sabo home due to the Gormans' noise.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. and Mrs. Sabo sued Mr. and Mrs. Gorman in a trial court (court of first instance) for damages based on a private nuisance.
- The jury found a verdict of $3,500 against Mr. and Mrs. Gorman.
- Mr. and Mrs. Gorman (appellants) appealed the judgment on that verdict to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, raising several points of error.
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 deliberate, malicious, and long-continued beaming of excessively loud radio noise into a neighbor's home, causing physical discomfort and seriously interfering with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of their property, constitute a private nuisance for which both compensatory and punitive damages can be awarded against a property owner who participated in its maintenance?
Opinions:
Majority - Hammond, J.
Yes, a deliberate, malicious, and long-continued beaming of excessively loud radio noise into a neighbor's home, causing physical discomfort and seriously interfering with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of their property, constitutes a private nuisance for which both compensatory and punitive damages can be awarded against a property owner who participated in its maintenance. The Court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding that the Sabos' declaration properly stated a cause of action for private nuisance, which occurs when noise causes physical discomfort and annoyance to those of ordinary sensibilities and seriously interferes with the ordinary comfort and enjoyment of their homes, diminishing the value of the use of their property rights. The Court found sufficient evidence that Mr. Gorman participated in the nuisance, as the radio belonged to him, was played in his home, he was aware of the intent to annoy, he failed to stop it when asked, and on one occasion, he increased the volume himself, in addition to his presence during his wife's threats. Regarding damages, the Court stated that for a temporary private nuisance affecting a home, the measure of damages is the diminution in the value of the use of the property, which can include the ordinary use and enjoyment of the home, as well as sickness or ill health caused by the nuisance. The Court upheld the award of punitive damages, noting they are recoverable in private nuisance cases where malice and willfulness are proven, which was sufficiently established against both Gormans. The jury instructions on compensatory and punitive damages were deemed accurate and fair, limiting recovery to interference with "ordinary comfort, use and enjoyment" for "normal, ordinary persons" and excluding damages for property value diminution or physical injury as such. The charge correctly focused on substantial, actual injury to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. Finally, the Court found no reversible error in the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance due to Mrs. Gorman's absence, as the right to be present in a civil case is not absolute, and the appellants failed to show actual prejudice from her absence or that she would have provided material testimony.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying the scope of private nuisance law in Maryland, particularly concerning non-trespassory invasions like noise. It affirms that the physical and emotional distress caused by excessive noise can constitute a substantial interference with property enjoyment, entitling victims to damages even if there is no direct physical damage to the property itself. The ruling also broadens the concept of liability for nuisance to include those who actively participate in its maintenance and continuance, not just its creation, and confirms that punitive damages are available when malice and willful conduct are evident, setting an important precedent for neighbor disputes involving intentional harassment.
