## Facts

- James M. Biglane and Nancy K. Biglane lived in an apartment next door to Under the Hill Saloon in Natchez, Mississippi.
- Under the Hill Corporation operated the Saloon as a nighttime bar and entertainment venue that played live and recorded music.
- The Biglanes complained that loud music and related noise regularly kept them awake at night; Mrs. Biglane frequently slept elsewhere on weekends because she could not sleep in the apartment.
- The problem was worse in warmer months when the Saloon left doors and windows open while music played, allowing sound to carry directly into the neighboring apartment.
- The Biglanes sued, alleging the Saloon’s operations constituted a private nuisance that substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of their home.
- The Saloon asserted that the Biglanes’ conduct (including complaints and efforts to obtain official or judicial action) amounted to tortious interference with business relations.
- The trial court found a private nuisance and entered injunctive relief, including an order that the Saloon not leave doors or windows open when music was playing. The court rejected the tortious-interference claim.
- The Saloon appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

## Issues

1. Whether noise from the Saloon constituted a private nuisance to the Biglanes’ adjacent residence.
2. Whether the Biglanes’ actions in complaining about the noise and seeking relief constituted tortious interference with the Saloon’s business relations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the Saloon’s noise constituted a private nuisance.
- The court affirmed injunctive relief aimed at limiting the nuisance, including requiring the Saloon to keep doors and windows closed while music was playing.
- The court held that the Biglanes’ actions did not constitute tortious interference with business relations.
- Disposition: affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A private nuisance is an invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land that is either (1) intentional and unreasonable, or (2) unintentional but otherwise actionable under rules governing negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous conduct.
- An invasion is “intentional” for nuisance purposes when the actor knows the invasion is resulting from its conduct or knows it is substantially certain to result.
- In evaluating unreasonable interference, courts consider the gravity of the harm (including loss of sleep and impaired residential enjoyment) and the utility of the defendant’s conduct, with attention to the character of the location.
- The test for actionable interference is measured by the effect on an ordinary person in that community, not a person with unusually sensitive preferences.
- A court sitting in equity may tailor an injunction to reduce the nuisance while allowing the defendant to continue lawful operations, rather than ordering a complete shutdown.
- Tortious interference with business relations requires proof of intentional and willful acts done to cause damage, performed without right or justifiable cause, and resulting in actual damage.
- Good-faith complaints to authorities and the filing or pursuit of legal remedies to protect one’s property use are generally justified and, without wrongful conduct or improper purpose, do not satisfy the elements of tortious interference.

## Conclusion

Biglane v. Under the Hill Corporation held that recurring late-night bar music that prevented neighbors from sleeping could constitute a private nuisance even in an entertainment area, and the Mississippi Supreme Court approved a limited injunction requiring the saloon to keep doors and windows closed when music played; at the same time, it ruled that the neighbors’ complaints and pursuit of nuisance relief were not tortious interference with business relations.


Biglane v. Under the Hill Corporation, 949 So. 2d 9 (2007)