## Facts

- The McKenzies owned a residence in Garrett County, Maryland, supplied by a domestic well.
- The Yommers owned adjoining property and operated a small grocery store and gasoline filling station with underground gasoline storage tanks.
- In December 1967, the McKenzies detected an odor in their well water; analysis showed gasoline contamination.
- After Mr. McKenzie complained, Mr. Yommer arranged to remove and replace one storage tank in January 1968.
- The McKenzies installed a filter and water softener in April 1968 to use water for cooking and bathing, but still hauled drinking water from about a mile away at the time of trial.
- The McKenzies sued for damages, alleging the gasoline escaped from the Yommers’ tanks and constituted a nuisance.
- A jury returned a $3,500 verdict for the McKenzies.

## Issues

1. Whether operating a gasoline filling station constitutes a nuisance per se.
2. Whether the McKenzies were required to prove negligence to recover for gasoline contamination of their well.
3. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find that gasoline from the Yommers’ underground tanks caused the contamination, making a directed verdict improper.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment for the McKenzies.
- A gasoline filling station is not a nuisance per se, but it may become a nuisance based on location or manner of operation.
- The McKenzies were not required to prove negligence because strict liability applied under Maryland’s Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine.
- Circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to find causation; the trial court properly denied the Yommers’ motions for directed verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful business is not a nuisance per se merely because it is a gasoline filling station; nuisance may arise from the activity’s location and operation.
- Maryland recognizes strict liability, consistent with Rylands v. Fletcher, when a landowner brings onto land and maintains a substance likely to cause harm if it escapes, the use is inappropriate to the locality, and the substance escapes and causes damage.
- Storing commercial quantities of gasoline in underground tanks immediately adjacent to a neighbor’s domestic well can constitute an inappropriate use supporting strict liability for resulting contamination.
- Causation in contamination cases may be proven by circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow reasonable jury inferences; absence of direct proof does not require a directed verdict where the record supports competing inferences.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a nuisance-based recovery without negligence proof, holding that gasoline storage in underground tanks next to a residential well could trigger strict liability when gasoline escapes and contaminates the neighbor’s water supply, and that the jury could reasonably find the Yommers’ tanks caused the contamination.


Yommer v. McKenzie, 255 Md. 220, 257 A.2d 138 (Md. 1969)