Background
Plaintiffs Vanessa Carlton and John McCauley — both professional musicians — own and reside at 141 Post Road in Warwick, Rhode Island, a home within the Pawtuxet Village Historic District and zoned residential. They purchased the property in March 2021. The adjacent parcel at 175 Post Road, owned by defendants Artak Avagyan and Lee Beausoleil, is zoned light industrial and was leased to North American Crane & Rigging, LLC. Beginning in July 2024, North American Crane’s customer, JOGO Corporation — a multi-family housing construction company — began conducting open-air fabrication operations on the site, generating sustained hammering, backup beepers, generator noise, and sawing for eight or more hours a day. A Providence Police sergeant dispatched with a calibrated sound meter recorded readings 10 decibels above the neighborhood residual level, and Warwick Police issued a noise violation to JOGO. The plaintiffs described their home as having become “maddening,” “depressing,” and “hell.” Mr. McCauley’s pre-existing tinnitus was aggravated by the noise. JOGO ceased operations on October 18, 2024, but a new crane operation immediately took its place.
In addition to the noise, defendant Avagyan was observed on multiple occasions walking the plaintiffs’ property line while apparently recording them and their minor child with a cell phone. A landscaper working at the plaintiffs’ home separately witnessed Avagyan filming. Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint on October 17, 2024, seeking damages and injunctive relief for private nuisance. After an ex parte temporary restraining order was granted and a multi-day hearing was held in November 2024, the Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction. The order barred defendants from harassing, filming, or interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of their property, from operating at 175 Post Road in a manner exceeding 60 decibels in violation of Warwick’s noise ordinance, and from conducting any operations whose noise unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property. Defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Rhode Island Supreme Court, per Justice Robinson, affirmed the preliminary injunction in all respects. On the first prong — likelihood of success on the merits — the Court rejected defendants’ federal preemption argument. Defendants had urged that OSHA regulations requiring construction vehicles to carry audible reverse signal alarms, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.601(b)(4), preempted Warwick’s noise ordinance. The Court found the argument meritless on two independent grounds: first, the nuisance-causing noise was not limited to backup alarms but included hammering, banging, sawing, and generator sounds, making the OSHA regulation beside the point; second, the OSHA rule itself provides an alternative — using a human observer to signal when it is safe to back up — so simultaneous compliance with both the federal regulation and the local ordinance was not a physical impossibility, foreclosing conflict preemption under Rhode Island law.
The Court also rejected defendants’ “coming to the nuisance” argument. While acknowledging that a plaintiff’s prior knowledge of an activity is a relevant factor under Weida v. Ferry, 493 A.2d 824 (R.I. 1985), the Court noted that plaintiffs’ property sits in a residential zone, that plaintiffs purchased in 2021, and that the noise at issue did not begin until July 2024 — three years after purchase. The hearing justice therefore did not err in declining to weigh this factor against the plaintiffs. On irreparable harm, the Court distinguished defendants’ reliance on Parrillo v. F.W. Woolworth Co. — which required medical evidence in a negligence damages context — because plaintiffs here sought injunctive relief for loss of use and enjoyment of their property, not compensation for personal injury, and such loss does not require expert medical proof. The balance of equities and the public interest also supported the injunction given the hearing justice’s credibility findings and the unrebutted evidence of ongoing interference.
Key Takeaways
- OSHA’s reverse-alarm mandate does not preempt local noise ordinances because the regulation’s built-in alternative (use of a human observer) makes simultaneous compliance physically possible, defeating conflict preemption.
- “Coming to the nuisance” is only one factor in the private nuisance analysis under Rhode Island law, not a bar to relief; where the challenged activity began years after the plaintiff moved in, the factor carries little weight.
- Plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief for private nuisance need not produce medical expert testimony to establish irreparable harm when the gravamen of the injury is loss of use and enjoyment of residential property — lay testimony and audio recordings can suffice.
- Surveillance-like conduct by a defendant — repeatedly filming neighbors and their minor child from a property line — may independently support a finding of material interference with the ordinary physical comfort and reasonable use of the plaintiffs’ property.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that industrial landowners in Rhode Island cannot invoke federal occupational safety regulations as a shield against private nuisance injunctions when the regulated activity conflicts with neighboring residential use. The ruling makes explicit that conflict preemption requires physical impossibility of dual compliance — not mere tension between regulatory schemes — and that OSHA’s own alternative-compliance pathway defeats that showing for vehicle backup alarms. For attorneys advising clients near mixed-use or transitioning industrial corridors, the case confirms that the start date of the offending activity, not just the existing character of the area, is central to the coming-to-the-nuisance analysis.
The decision also has practical significance for plaintiffs pursuing injunctive relief in noise nuisance cases: lay witness testimony, police sound readings, and recordings of the offending noise can be sufficient to establish both likelihood of success and irreparable harm without retained acoustical or medical experts. The Court’s endorsement of the injunction’s 60-decibel ceiling — drawn directly from the local ordinance — offers a workable model for drafting specific, Rule 65-compliant injunctive relief in neighbor-noise disputes.