## Facts

- John M. Lummis, Jr. owned littoral property on Sippewisset Beach in Buzzards Bay, adjacent to property owned by Josiah K. Lilly, III (later conveyed to Lilly’s wife).
- In 1966, Lilly obtained a state license to build and maintain a stone groin extending about 105 feet seaward from the mean high water line, positioned near the boundary with the neighboring parcel.
- The license stated it did not authorize encroachment on property not owned or controlled by the licensee without the affected owner’s consent.
- Lummis alleged the groin altered littoral drift, causing sand to accumulate on the Lilly property and causing erosion and narrowing of Lummis’s beach.
- Lummis sued for private nuisance, “unreasonable use” of littoral property, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages and removal or modification of the groin.
- The trial court treated defendants’ motion as one for summary judgment and entered judgment for the defendants; Lummis appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the construction and maintenance of a licensed stone groin that allegedly causes erosion to an adjoining shorefront parcel must be evaluated under a reasonable-use standard governing correlative littoral rights.
2. Whether a governmental license to build a coastal structure is conclusive or immunizes the licensee from civil liability to adjacent littoral owners.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper given disputes over causation, extent of harm, and the reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that conflicts between neighboring littoral owners are governed by a reasonable-use framework.
- The court concluded the state license was not dispositive of civil liability, particularly where it preserved others’ property rights.
- The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding causation, injury, and reasonableness, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Littoral rights are correlative; each shorefront owner’s use is qualified by the coequal rights of neighboring owners and must be exercised reasonably.
- A shoreline protection structure that benefits one parcel but harms another is evaluated under a fact-dependent reasonable-use analysis, not an automatic rule of entitlement.
- Governmental authorization to build a coastal structure does not, by itself, bar nuisance or related civil claims by adjacent owners, especially where the authorization disclaims permission to encroach on others’ property.
- Reasonableness commonly requires consideration of purpose, foreseeability and gravity of harm, feasibility of less harmful alternatives, and the relationship between benefit to one owner and loss to another.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where material factual disputes exist and the central issue (reasonableness) is ordinarily for the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court required a fact-based determination of whether the defendants’ groin was a reasonable exercise of littoral rights and held that the state license did not eliminate potential liability, reversing summary judgment because key factual disputes remained.


Lummis v. Lilly, 385 Mass. 41, 429 N.E.2d 1146 (1982)