Hernandez v. Richard
772 So.2d 994, 2000 WL 1804531 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Frequent or long-continued noise from a property, such as the barking from numerous dogs, constitutes an actionable nuisance when it unreasonably disturbs a neighbor's comfort and repose, causing real damage rather than mere inconvenience.
Facts:
- John A. Hernandez purchased a home within the municipal limits of the Town of Grand Coteau.
- His neighbor, James Wayne Richard, who lived approximately 250 feet away, maintained an average of ten to twelve beagles in an outdoor pen.
- Richard used the beagles for hunting and also sold some of them after training.
- Hernandez and his family were disturbed by the dogs' frequent and loud barking, which occurred at various times of day and night, including early morning and late at night.
- The noise interfered with the Hernandez family's sleep, daily activities, and reasonable use and enjoyment of their property.
- Hernandez complained to Richard directly about the barking, and when that failed, he made numerous calls to local law enforcement, but the problem persisted.
Procedural Posture:
- John A. Hernandez filed suit against James Wayne Richard in a Louisiana trial court, seeking a permanent injunction and damages for an alleged violation of a town noise ordinance.
- Hernandez also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The trial court entered a preliminary default against Richard, but later denied Hernandez's motion to confirm the default judgment.
- Richard filed a formal answer to the petition.
- After a two-day hearing, the trial court denied Hernandez's motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding he failed to prove that Richard had violated the town ordinance.
- Hernandez (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 frequent and long-continued barking from a pack of ten to twelve beagles constitute a violation of a town ordinance prohibiting noise that disturbs the comfort or repose of any person in the vicinity, thereby justifying a preliminary injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - Woodard, J.
Yes, the frequent and long-continued barking constitutes a violation of the town ordinance. The determining factor for an actionable nuisance is whether it causes real damages as opposed to a mere inconvenience. The court must weigh the reasonableness of the conduct by considering factors such as the neighborhood's character, the degree of intrusion, and the effect on the neighbor's health and safety. In this case, testimony from Hernandez, his family, police officers, and private investigators, along with audio/video evidence, overwhelmingly demonstrated that the barking from ten to twelve beagles was not a mere inconvenience but a 'cacophony' that unreasonably disturbed Hernandez's comfort and repose. Richard's own testimony admitted to numerous triggers for the barking. Therefore, the evidence amply supported the claim and satisfied the 'frequent or long continued noise' requirement of the ordinance, justifying an injunction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for what constitutes an actionable noise nuisance under a general local ordinance. It establishes that courts should interpret vague terms like 'frequent or long continued' by focusing on the impact of the noise—whether it causes 'real damage' to a neighbor's enjoyment of their property, as opposed to a 'mere inconvenience.' The case emphasizes the importance of objective evidence, such as third-party testimony and recordings, in proving the unreasonableness of the noise. This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs in nuisance cases involving multiple animals by focusing on the cumulative effect of the disturbance rather than the subjective tolerance of the parties.
