Background
Theresa and Christopher Abel experienced a sewage backup in the basement of their Baltimore home on December 28 and 29, 2019. A clog in the City’s main sewer line caused the backup. City workers arrived approximately 17 hours after the Abels first called 311, and the water stopped backing up about 15 minutes later. The Abels had experienced no prior backups at the home, and they had no further sewer problems for more than two years.
The Abels sued the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for negligence and private nuisance. The jury found the City not negligent as to the 2019 incident but found it liable for private nuisance and awarded the Abels $18,240. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, reasoning that the injury caused by the condition—not the conduct creating it—determined whether the interference was unreasonable and that the backup could be considered continuous or repetitive. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted review.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed. It held that private-nuisance liability requires consideration of both the significance of the interference with the plaintiff’s reasonable use and enjoyment of land and the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct or use of property. The defendant must have engaged in wrongful conduct. That conduct may be negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous, or it may be wrongful because it creates a continuous or recurring, unreasonable intrusion. Once such wrongful conduct creates a significant and unreasonable interference, the defendant is strictly liable for the resulting damages.
Even viewing the evidence most favorably to the Abels, the Court held that they did not present legally sufficient evidence that wrongful conduct by the City caused the 2019 backup. The jury rejected negligence, and the evidence did not establish reckless or abnormally dangerous conduct. Nor did the single backup become a continuous or recurring nuisance merely because sewage entered the basement over several hours and its effects lingered. Accordingly, the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the 2019 private-nuisance claim.
Key Takeaways
- A substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land, standing alone, does not establish private-nuisance liability under Maryland law; the interference must result from wrongful conduct by the defendant.
- Wrongful conduct may consist of negligence, recklessness, abnormally dangerous activity, or non-negligent conduct that produces a continuous or recurring unreasonable intrusion.
- A one-time sewer backup does not qualify as continuous or recurring merely because the backup lasts for hours or its odor and damage persist after the flow stops.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Maryland private-nuisance law does not impose liability solely because a condition substantially harms another person’s enjoyment of property. Courts must also examine the defendant’s conduct, preventing nuisance doctrine from becoming strict liability for every serious property interference.
The ruling is particularly important in claims against municipalities and utility operators. A plaintiff seeking damages for an isolated sewer failure must present legally sufficient evidence of negligent, reckless, abnormally dangerous, or otherwise wrongful conduct; the severity of the resulting damage cannot substitute for that showing.