slip.op
Md.2026Background
- A 2019 sewer backup flooded the Abels’ basement, and they sued Baltimore City for negligence and private nuisance. 1
- The jury rejected negligence but found the City liable for private nuisance and awarded damages. 2
- The City argued on appeal that private nuisance requires wrongful conduct or a continuous/recurring intrusion, neither of which was proven. 3
- The Court of Appeals granted review to decide whether nuisance turns only on the invasion’s severity, whether continuity was shown, and whether a single backup can support nuisance liability. 4
- The Court held Maryland nuisance law requires consideration of the defendant’s conduct and wrongful conduct, including continuous or recurring unreasonable intrusion when conduct is otherwise non-tortious. 5
- Viewing the evidence most favorably to the Abels, the Court found no legally sufficient evidence that the City’s conduct caused a continuous or recurring invasion, and reversed. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does private nuisance require wrongful conduct by defendant? 7 | Abels said nuisance turns on substantial interference, not fault. | City said nuisance requires wrongful or unreasonable conduct. | Yes; nuisance requires wrongful conduct or unreasonable continuous intrusion. 8 |
| Can a single sewer backup support nuisance liability? 9 | Abels said the 2019 backup plus later events showed recurrence. | City said one-day backup was not continuous or recurring. | No; a single one-day backup was insufficient. 10 |
| Was the evidence sufficient to send nuisance to the jury? 11 | Abels relied on the 2019 backup and expert testimony about earlier cleaning. | City said evidence showed no continuous invasion and no wrongful conduct. | No; judgment should have been entered for the City. 12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Giant of Md., LLC, 477 Md. 121 (Md. 2021) (de novo review of a motion for judgment 13)
- Plank v. Cherneski, 469 Md. 548 (Md. 2020) (legal elements of a tort reviewed without deference 14)
- Express Scripts, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, 493 Md. 329 (Md. 2026) (distinguishes public and private nuisance 15)
- Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 335 Md. 58 (Md. 1994) (private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of use and enjoyment of land 16)
- Short v. Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co., 50 Md. 73 (Md. 1878) (negligent conduct causing flooding supported nuisance liability 17)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright, 433 Md. 303 (Md. 2013) (private nuisance may rest on negligent acts causing contamination 18)
- Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. CAE-Link Corp., 330 Md. 115 (Md. 1993) (nuisance focuses on unreasonable interference; strict liability follows once nuisance is established 19)
- Wietzke v. Chesapeake Conference Ass'n, 421 Md. 355 (Md. 2011) (private nuisance requires balancing reasonable use and substantial interference; CAE-Link did not eliminate that balance 20)
- Taylor v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 130 Md. 133 (Md. 1917) (municipal sewer operations can create a private nuisance through ongoing odors and intrusion 21)
- Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Malone, 73 Md. 268 (Md. 1890) (business operations causing substantial interference can be a private nuisance 22)
- Corbi v. Hendrickson, 268 Md. 459 (Md. 1973) (continuous loud music supported injunctive nuisance relief 23)
- Battisto v. Perkins, 210 Md. 542 (Md. 1956) (artificially increased surface runoff can support nuisance liability 24)