Can Benario, Conant, and Gossard claim private nuisance against Copeland when his elaborate display includes overbearing music and bright lights that prevents nearby neighbors’ in a residential area from getting a restful night sleep, and enjoying their property?
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes. Under Missouri law, private nuisance is a conjunctive test where both of the following elements must be met: (1) unreasonable, unnatural or unusual use of land which (2) substantially harms the rights of another to peacefully enjoy his property. Tichenor v. Vore, 953 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997). Copeland’s display was unreasonable because it created an unbearable environment in the residential locality. Copeland’s display caused significant harm because the …show more content…
In Biggs, the court recognized the continuous, loud announcements coming from a public address system mounted in a car were intolerable. Biggs v. Griffith, 231 S.W.2d. 875, 881 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1950). In Biggs, the defendant used a public address system to make announcements about his theater and play music continuously during normal business hours on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Id. at 877. The court reasoned the overbearing announcements from the public address system were unacceptable because the length of the announcements did not benefit the community and continued longer than preferred by people in the area. Id. at 878. The public address system produced loud and abnormal noises that overcame the loud sounds of trains passing through the town. Id. The court inferred the decibel level of the noise was louder than normal noises heard in the area because it produced a noise so innocuous that it overcame a train. Id. Similarly, in Rhodes, an open-air parking lot generated frequent traffic, which caused emissions of unfavorable noise, light, and fumes toward adjacent properties. Rhodes v. A. Moll Grocer Co., 95 S.W.2d. 837, 843 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1968). In Rhodes, a grocer operated an open-air garage adjacent to the plaintiff’s property that induced traffic congestion in the area, which lead to fumes traveling onto nearby properties and frequent honking. Id. at 839. The court reasoned that the frequent honking, and unfavorable emissions coming from the vehicles was perverse because it forced the plaintiffs to keep their windows closed to lessen the severity of the honking and prevent fumes from entering the house. Id. Therefore, frequent traffic and long durations of noises make living or operating businesses in areas near the issue
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes. Under Missouri law, private nuisance is a conjunctive test where both of the following elements must be met: (1) unreasonable, unnatural or unusual use of land which (2) substantially harms the rights of another to peacefully enjoy his property. Tichenor v. Vore, 953 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997). Copeland’s display was unreasonable because it created an unbearable environment in the residential locality. Copeland’s display caused significant harm because the …show more content…
In Biggs, the court recognized the continuous, loud announcements coming from a public address system mounted in a car were intolerable. Biggs v. Griffith, 231 S.W.2d. 875, 881 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1950). In Biggs, the defendant used a public address system to make announcements about his theater and play music continuously during normal business hours on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Id. at 877. The court reasoned the overbearing announcements from the public address system were unacceptable because the length of the announcements did not benefit the community and continued longer than preferred by people in the area. Id. at 878. The public address system produced loud and abnormal noises that overcame the loud sounds of trains passing through the town. Id. The court inferred the decibel level of the noise was louder than normal noises heard in the area because it produced a noise so innocuous that it overcame a train. Id. Similarly, in Rhodes, an open-air parking lot generated frequent traffic, which caused emissions of unfavorable noise, light, and fumes toward adjacent properties. Rhodes v. A. Moll Grocer Co., 95 S.W.2d. 837, 843 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1968). In Rhodes, a grocer operated an open-air garage adjacent to the plaintiff’s property that induced traffic congestion in the area, which lead to fumes traveling onto nearby properties and frequent honking. Id. at 839. The court reasoned that the frequent honking, and unfavorable emissions coming from the vehicles was perverse because it forced the plaintiffs to keep their windows closed to lessen the severity of the honking and prevent fumes from entering the house. Id. Therefore, frequent traffic and long durations of noises make living or operating businesses in areas near the issue