## Facts

- Elliott, a custodian for a Roman Catholic church, controlled a large bell customarily rung several times daily for church purposes.
- Rogers lived nearby and was recovering from a severe sunstroke, after which the bell’s ringing allegedly triggered extreme physical reactions, including convulsions.
- Rogers’s physician notified Elliott that the bell noise was injuring Rogers and asked that the bell not be rung.
- Elliott continued ringing the bell as usual despite the warning.
- Rogers sued in an action of trespass on the case, alleging the bell ringing was an unreasonable, tortious nuisance causing personal injury.
- A jury returned a verdict for Elliott; Rogers challenged the trial judge’s instructions by exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether customary, otherwise lawful church bell ringing becomes an actionable private nuisance when the defendant knows it seriously harms a nearby plaintiff due to extraordinary susceptibility.
2. Whether nuisance liability for noise is measured by its effect on a person of ordinary sensibility or by the particular plaintiff’s idiosyncratic vulnerability.
3. Whether continued noise after notice of a neighbor’s condition can supply malice or otherwise make the conduct actionable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overruled the plaintiff’s exceptions and left judgment for the defendant in place.
- The court held the bell ringing was not a legal nuisance on these facts.
- The court applied an objective standard: interference must be such as would materially affect the reasonable comfort of persons of ordinary sensibilities, not a person with an uncommon sensitivity.
- The court declined to convert a customary, proper use of property into a nuisance based solely on the plaintiff’s peculiar condition.
- Although motive may matter in some noise-nuisance settings, the court found no sufficient basis to treat the ringing as malicious so as to impose liability.

## Legal Principles

- Private nuisance from noise is evaluated by the degree of annoyance or interference that ordinary members of the community may reasonably be required to tolerate.
- A defendant is generally not liable for nuisance when the complained-of harm results only from the plaintiff’s particular and uncommon sensitivity, and the activity would not materially disturb persons of ordinary sensibility.
- Property-use rules in nuisance are framed to be definite and generalizable; lawful, customary uses for proper purposes are not made unlawful merely because a uniquely susceptible neighbor is injured.
- Evidence of improper motive can be relevant in noise disputes, but notice of a neighbor’s special vulnerability alone does not automatically render an otherwise lawful use tortious.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict, holding that customary church bell ringing for a proper purpose was not an actionable nuisance where the plaintiff’s injury stemmed from an extraordinary sensitivity rather than an interference that would materially disturb an ordinary person’s reasonable enjoyment of property.


Rogers v. Elliott, 146 Mass. 349, 15 N.E. 768 (Mass. 1888)