Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Cae-Link Corp.
330 Md. 115, 622 A.2d 745, 37 ERC (BNA) 1863 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governmental entity is strictly liable for a nuisance it creates, even when the activity causing the nuisance was compelled by a federal court order, as such an order does not immunize the entity from liability for invading the private rights of others.
Facts:
- Due to an environmental crisis at the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) became subject to federal court litigation initiated in 1973.
- Pursuant to a federal court order, Montgomery County designated a large, undeveloped tract of land, known as Site 2, for the construction of a sewage sludge composting facility.
- The federal district court ordered WSSC to have the Site 2 facility operational by July 1, 1979, and to take all necessary actions to achieve this, including acquiring the land.
- WSSC acquired 115 acres for Site 2, which was adjacent to the Montgomery Industrial Park where CAE-Link Corporation and other respondents owned property.
- The land WSSC acquired was burdened by restrictive covenants prohibiting the "emission of objectionable odors" and its use as a "dump or sanitary fill."
- After beginning operations, the WSSC composting facility emitted noxious and offensive odors that interfered with the respondents' use and enjoyment of their neighboring properties.
Procedural Posture:
- WSSC filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against neighboring landowners, including CAE-Link Corporation.
- The landowners (respondents) filed counterclaims against WSSC for nuisance, inverse condemnation, and breach of covenant.
- The trial court granted WSSC partial summary judgment on the nuisance claim, requiring the landowners to prove negligence.
- At the conclusion of the landowners' case, the trial court granted WSSC's motion for judgment on the nuisance claim, finding no evidence of negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of WSSC on the inverse condemnation claim.
- The landowners, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment on the nuisance claim, holding that Maryland law imposes strict liability for nuisance and does not require proof of negligence.
- WSSC, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, to review the decision of the Court of Special 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:
Is a governmental entity strictly liable for a nuisance created by a facility it was compelled to build and operate by a federal court order?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, J.
Yes. A governmental entity is strictly liable for a nuisance it creates, and the fact that its actions were mandated by a federal court order does not create an exception to this long-standing rule. Maryland law defines nuisance based on the unreasonable interference with a plaintiff's use and enjoyment of property, not on the defendant's negligence or lack of fault. The federal court order directed WSSC to build a composting facility; it did not order WSSC to build and operate a facility that emits noxious odors and invades the property of others. Citing precedents like Taylor v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the court reasoned that a delegation of power to perform an act does not carry with it the right to inflict injury upon an innocent individual. Furthermore, federal law does not preempt the state nuisance claim, as the Clean Water Act's savings clause explicitly preserves state common law actions brought in the source state. The cost of abating the odors or compensating those affected is a cost of the facility, which should be borne by the public it serves, not by a few adjacent landowners.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens Maryland's adherence to a strict liability standard for nuisance, extending it to governmental entities acting under the compulsion of a federal court order. The ruling clarifies that a court mandate to perform an action does not implicitly authorize the creation of a nuisance or provide immunity from state tort law. This precedent establishes that the costs associated with the negative externalities of public works, such as pollution or noxious odors, must be internalized as a cost of the project itself, either through abatement or compensation. For future cases, this means that government defendants cannot use compliance with a judicial or legislative mandate as a shield against liability for the harmful side effects of their activities.
