Muehlman v. Keilman - 257 Ind. 100, 272 N.E.2d 591 (1971)

Rule:

No actual damage to property need be shown in an action for nuisance. The nuisance statute, Ind. Code § 34-1-52-1 (1971), is as follows: Whatever is injurious to health, or indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance, and the subject of an action. Ind. Code § 34-1-52-1 (1971). Nowhere within this statute is there any mention of actual damage to property.

Facts:

The action was brought by appellee complainants, Paul A. Keilman and Lorraine Keilman, for an injunction and damages against appellant landowners, Carl F. Muehlman, Jr. and Janice I. Muehlman. Appellees claimed appellants, over a period of four months, maliciously ran, started and raced the diesel engines of their two semi-trailer trucks at all times during the day and night immediately adjacent to appellees' residence property and in close proximity to appellees' bedroom. Further, appellees alleged that the noise and fumes were destructive to them and their family’s health and comfort in the use and occupation of their dwelling house and that it had rendered the use of said real estate unhealthy, undesirable, and annoying. It was asserted that such actions of the appellants constituted a nuisance, and appellees sought an injunction to have this nuisance permanently abated and claimed for damages. The trial court found for appellees and granted a temporary injunction against appellants enjoining and restraining them from starting, idling, and revving their trucks between the hours of 8:30 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. until a further hearing could be had on the permanent injunction. Appeal is taken from this injunction. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's order.

Issue:

Was the trial court’s decision in granting appellee complainants’ action for nuisance proper?

Answer:

Yes. The court affirmed the trial court's temporary injunction prohibiting the appellant landowners from operating their trucks at night in the complainants' action for nuisance.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that noise could constitute a nuisance and that no actual damage to property was required to prove a nuisance. The court held that the temporary injunction was properly issued because the complainants proved that the noise caused great damage to their enjoyment of their land and that there was no adequate remedy at law. The court determined that the temporary injunction was supported by sufficient evidence. The court further held that the appellant landowners failed to show that the temporary injunction would cause substantial harm to their livelihood. The court then determined that the temporary injunction was sufficiently clear to indicate the conduct enjoined, and that the trial court properly ruled on evidentiary and procedural matters at trial.