Meadowbrook Swimming Club, Inc. v. Albert
197 A. 146, 1938 Md. LEXIS 340, 173 Md. 641 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful business's operation can be enjoined as a private nuisance if it produces noise of such character and volume that it unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of neighboring property, causing actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities.
Facts:
- A business corporation operated an amusement place, including a large swimming pool, in the valley of Jones' Falls.
- Nearby residents owned expensive homes on the hills and plateau to the northeast, approximately 200 feet above the amusement place.
- In 1935, the corporation added an outdoor dance floor with a 'shell' platform for musicians.
- The corporation hired modern jazz orchestras to play amplified music from 9:00 PM to midnight on multiple nights per week.
- Due to the area's acoustics, the sound of the orchestra became intensified as it traveled up the hills to the residents' homes.
- The music was so penetrating and loud that it prevented the residents, described as persons of exceptional integrity and intelligence, from sleeping, studying, or otherwise leading normal lives in their homes.
- The corporation made some efforts to mitigate the noise, such as reducing amplification and the number of dance nights, but the disturbance persisted.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of residents and property owners sued a business corporation in a trial court.
- The residents sought an injunction to stop the nuisance created by loud music from the corporation's outdoor dance hall.
- The trial court (with Chief Judge Dennis presiding) found in favor of the residents and issued a decree for an injunction against the corporation.
- The defendant corporation, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decree to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, with the residents acting as appellees.
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 operation of an outdoor dance hall, which produces loud music that significantly disturbs nearby residents and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of their homes, constitute an enjoinable nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Urner, J.
Yes. The operation of the outdoor dance hall constitutes an enjoinable nuisance because any business, even if lawful and useful, that interferes with the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of another's property is a legal wrong. The controlling rule is whether the condition produced is naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities. Noise alone can create such a nuisance. Here, the loud, continuous, and insistent music seriously incommoded normal residents in their homes, preventing them from sleeping, studying, or conversing, which constitutes an unreasonable and unlawful invasion of their rights. It is no defense that other noises exist in the locality, as the defendant must answer for its own contribution to the disturbance.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the classic nuisance principle that the right to quiet enjoyment of one's property can limit another's right to use their property for a lawful business. It solidifies that noise, even from a socially acceptable recreational activity, is not exempt from nuisance law if it unreasonably impacts neighbors. The court's focus on a tailored injunction—abating the noise rather than shutting down the business—highlights the flexible and equitable nature of this remedy. This case serves as a key precedent for noise-based nuisance claims, emphasizing the 'ordinary sensibilities' standard and demonstrating that a defendant's contribution to a noisy environment is judged independently of other ambient sounds.
