Rogers v. Elliott
1888 Mass. LEXIS 260, 15 N.E. 768, 146 Mass. 349 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action for private nuisance based on noise is judged by its effect on an ordinary, reasonable person, not by its effect on a person with a peculiar or hypersensitive condition.
Facts:
- The defendant was the authorized manager of a Roman Catholic Church in a thickly settled part of a town.
- The defendant rang the church's bell as part of regular Sunday church services.
- The plaintiff had a peculiar condition that made him painfully sensitive to the noise of the bell.
- The ringing of the bell did not materially affect the health or comfort of ordinary people living in the vicinity.
- The plaintiff's legal claim was based solely on the injury he suffered due to his unique sensitivity to the noise.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court, alleging the ringing of the church bell constituted a nuisance.
- A trial was held, and a jury returned a verdict.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment to this 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 the creation of noise, which does not affect ordinary people, constitute an actionable private nuisance if it injures a person due to their peculiar physical condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Knowlton, J.
No. An act cannot be considered a private nuisance solely because it affects a person with a peculiar or uncommon sensitivity; the standard must be its effect on an ordinary person. The court reasoned that legal rights to the use of property cannot be subject to an uncertain and fluctuating standard based on the unique temperament or health of a single individual. Doing so would paralyze industrial enterprises and other legitimate activities, as the legality of an action could change with every new neighbor or their temporary condition. The proper test for nuisance, similar to the standard of care in negligence, is objective and must be based on the experience of ordinary people. While the defendant might have a moral or humanitarian obligation to consider the plaintiff's condition, the plaintiff has no legal right to demand the cessation of an activity that does not bother the public at large.
Analysis:
This case establishes the objective 'ordinary person' or 'reasonable person' standard for private nuisance claims involving sensory disturbances like noise. By rejecting a subjective standard based on a plaintiff's unique sensitivities, the court created a more stable and predictable legal framework for property use. This decision ensures that lawful and common activities are not enjoined simply because they affect an unusually vulnerable individual. The precedent requires courts to focus on the general and ordinary effects of an activity, solidifying the principle that the law protects the ordinary comfort of existence, not the specialized needs of the hypersensitive.
Unlock the full brief for Rogers v. Elliott