Trueheart v. Parker
257 S.W. 640 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful business, while not a nuisance per se, may become a nuisance in fact if its operation, due to its location, surroundings, or the manner in which it is conducted, substantially interferes with the reasonable, peaceful, and comfortable use and enjoyment of adjacent residential property.
Facts:
- Appellant owns a residence where he lives with his family, as well as an adjoining tenement house and an apartment house, on Josephine Street in San Antonio.
- Appellee constructed a 40-foot wide, 90-foot long building on a lot directly across Josephine Street from appellant’s residence property, which Appellee uses as a dance hall.
- The dance hall operates nightly from 8:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. or 12:00 a.m., attracting between 75 and 150 people.
- The dance hall features loud music, including screeching pianos, high-keyed violins, and blaring saxophones, and there are instances of boisterous and profane language from patrons.
- Automobiles frequently block the street in front of appellant's house at night, causing honking and other disagreeable noises.
- The noise from the dance hall and the street disturbances deprive appellant and his family of rest and comfort, driving away sleep.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant sought a permanent injunction in the trial court to restrain Appellee from operating a dance hall, alleging it was a nuisance disturbing his family and depreciating his property value.
- The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction.
- The trial court submitted a single issue to the jury: 'Does the operation of defendant’s dance hall do injury to plaintiff’s property or person, or cause annoyance and discomfort to plaintiff and his family in the use and enjoyment of their home?'
- The jury answered this question in the negative.
- Based on the jury’s answer, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Appellee, denying the permanent injunction and dissolving the temporary injunction.
- Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil 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 the operation of a licensed dance hall directly across the street from a residence constitute a nuisance in fact if its accompanying noise, traffic, and disorderly conduct substantially disturb the peace and comfort of the residents and interfere with their enjoyment of property?
Opinions:
Majority - FLY, C. J.
Yes, the operation of a licensed dance hall can constitute a nuisance in fact if its accompanying noise, traffic, and disorderly conduct substantially disturb the peace and comfort of residents and interfere with their enjoyment of property. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the uncontradicted evidence established the dance hall as a nuisance. While a dance hall is not a nuisance per se (by its very nature), it can become one through its conduct, location, or surroundings. A nuisance is broadly defined as anything that works an injury, harm, or prejudice to an individual or the public, endangers health, offends human senses, or impairs the reasonable, peaceful use of property. The court emphasized the maxim, 'Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' (use your own property so as not to injure that of another). Despite being licensed by the city, a permit does not 'sanctify' a business or negate its injurious effects if it invades others' rights. The court found that common sense, reason, and universal experience dictate that a dance hall cannot operate in close proximity to private residences without disturbing the occupants. The testimony, which was largely uncontradicted by objective witnesses, confirmed that the loud music, boisterous behavior, and traffic disturbances deprived appellant and his family of rest and comfort. The court also noted that the closing argument by appellee’s attorney, which appealed to the jury's sympathy regarding appellee's investment, was highly improper and likely prejudiced the jury, preventing a fair verdict despite a judicial instruction to disregard it.
Analysis:
This case underscores the principle that the right to use one's property is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of neighbors to the quiet enjoyment of their own property. It clarifies that even businesses operating legally and with proper licenses can be deemed nuisances if their actual operation significantly impacts surrounding residents. The court’s willingness to overturn a jury verdict due to overwhelming, uncontradicted evidence of disturbance and an improper jury argument demonstrates a robust protection of residential quality of life against business encroachments. This precedent would guide future cases where businesses, though lawful, generate noise, traffic, or other disturbances that interfere with residential comfort.
