Sturges v. Bridgman

Brief Fact Summary.

For thirty years, a maker of confections conducted business in a property that use two large mortars that made a substantial amount of noise when operating. A physician, who previously had a garden in the area directly behind the mortar, decided to convert the garden into a consultation room. When the area became a consultation room, the physician alleged that the sound from the mortar seriously interfered with the physician’s use of the room. The physician brought suit against the confectioner. The Master of the Rolls granted an injunction. The confectioner appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

When the nature of the nuisance arises solely after the claimant’s property is validly altered, the property’s occupant has a cause of action for nuisance.

Facts.

For over thirty years, a maker of confections was conducting his business from the same location. Behind the property was the confectioner’s kitchen, which contained two large mortars that made a large amount of noise while operating. The kitchen wall was shared with another property that a physician, Plaintiff, occupied. The back of the physician’s property had been known to be as a garden, so effect of the mortars’ noise was slight. Later, the physician constructed consultation room where the garden was located, and the noise began to seriously interfere with the physician’s use of the room. The physician brought suit against the confectioner seeking an injunction of the mortars’ operation. The Master of the Rolls granted an injunction. The confectioner appealed.

Issue.

Whether the property’s occupant has a cause of action for nuisance when the nature of the nuisance arises solely after the claimant’s property is validly altered.

Held.

Yes, the property’s occupant has a cause of action for nuisance when the nature of the nuisance arises solely after the claimant’s property is validly altered.

Discussion.

Merely because the confectioner did not have an interruption in his operation of his mortars for more than 30 years does not create or entitle him to an easement for their continued operation. Prior to the construction of the consultation room, the physician did not feel the impact of the noise, so it cannot be said that the physician acquiesced to the nuisance, creating an easement. A manufacturer’s choice to operate in a residential neighborhood rather than an industrial area may impact whether the neighbors have a justifiable claim of nuisance. However, it would be unreasonable to enjoin land growth by permitting a single occupant to diminish future use of adjacent land. Therefore, the injunction is affirmed.