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
- Whether operating a gasoline filling station constitutes a nuisance per se.
- Whether the McKenzies were required to prove negligence to recover for gasoline contamination of their well.
- 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.