Opinion ID: 1800410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the Under the Hill Saloon a Private Nuisance to the Biglanes?

Text: ¶ 18. The Biglanes asserted that the Saloon was a private nuisance. A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of his property. Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So.2d 648, 662 (Miss.1995). One landowner may not use his land so as to unreasonably annoy, inconvenience, or harm others. Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). ¶ 19. An entity is subject to liability for a private nuisance only when its conduct is a legal cause of an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land and that invasion is either (a) intentional and unreasonable, or (b) unintentional but otherwise provides the basis for a cause of action for negligent or reckless conduct or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. Id. ¶ 20. The trial court proceeded under the first path of liabilitywhether the conduct complained of was intentional and unreasonable. After reviewing the evidence presented at trial, the chancellor found ample evidence that the Biglanes frequently could not use or enjoy their propertysignificantly, that Mrs. Biglane often slept away from the apartment on weekends to avoid the noise and that she could not have her grandchildren over on the weekends because of the noise. The audiologist who testified for the Biglanes concluded that the noise levels were excessive and unreasonable, although he also conceded that he had never measured the noise levels in the couple's bedroom. This problem was exacerbated during the summer months, when the un-airconditioned Saloon left its doors and windows open to defray the oppressive Natchez heat. ¶ 21. The Saloon did offer a witness who lived in back of the establishment who said he never had any problems with the noise, but the chancellor held that he was not an impartial witness, since he was testifying for his landlord. ¶ 22. Ultimately the trial court weighed the fact that the Biglanes knew or should have known that there was going to be some sort of noise associated with living within five feet of a well established saloon which provides live music on the weekends. ¶ 23. We have examined similar issues before. An important Mississippi case regarding private nuisance based on the actions of a neighbor is Alfred Jacobshagen Co. v. Dockery, 243 Miss. 511, 139 So.2d 632 (1962). In that case a group of residents in Byram were overwhelmed by the repulsive odors of a nearby rendering plant. Id. at 514-15, 139 So.2d at 632-33. ¶ 24. The general rule is that [a] business, although in itself lawful, which impregnates the atmosphere with disagreeable and offensive odors and stenches, may become a nuisance to those occupying property in the vicinity, where such obnoxious smells result in a material injury to such owners. Id. at 517, 139 So.2d at 634. This same rule extends to a situation where a lawful business injects loud music into the surrounding neighborhoods. For [a] reasonable use of one's property cannot be construed to include those uses which produce obnoxious [noises], which in turn result in a material injury to owners of property in the vicinity, causing them to suffer substantial annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort. Id. ¶ 25. Accordingly, even a lawful businesswhich the Under the Hill Saloon certainly is [1] may become . . . a nuisance by interfering with its neighbors' enjoyment of their property. Id. We recognize that [e]ach [private nuisance] case must be decided upon its own peculiar facts, taking into consideration the location and the surrounding circumstances. Id. Ultimately, [i]t is not necessary that other property owners should be driven from their dwellings, because [i]t is enough that the enjoyment of life and property is rendered materially uncomfortable and annoying. Id. ¶ 26. In Dockery we deferred greatly to the chancery court and determined that it had the power to enjoin such future operations of the rendering plant as constituted in fact a nuisance, and that it also had the lesser power to permit continued operation of the plant, subject to certain stated conditions and requirements. 243 Miss. at 517, 139 So.2d at 634; see also Lambert v. Matthews, 757 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Miss. Ct.App.2000) (chancery court's limitation on farmowners from keeping more than two roosters on their property at any time was affirmed as a proper equitable response to private nuisance caused by the crowing of the birds). ¶ 27. In the case at hand, the trial court exercised its power to permit continued operation of the Saloon while setting conditions to its future operation. Namely, it found that the Saloon could not operat[e] its business with its doors and windows opened during any time that amplified music is being played inside the saloon. The chancery court found that such a limitation is reasonable in that it should help contain the noise within the saloon, and should discourage the bar patrons from congregating or loitering in the streets outside of the saloon. ¶ 28. From a review of the record it is clear that the chancery court balanced the interests between the Biglanes and the Saloon in a quest for an equitable remedy that allowed the couple to enjoy their private apartment and while protecting a popular business and tourist attraction from over-regulation. See also Lambert, 757 So.2d at 1071 (Equity should adjust the remedy to the need in a nuisance case). Accordingly, we agree that the Saloon was a private nuisance to the Biglanes and affirm the trial court's equitable conditions placed upon its continued operation.