48 Pa. D. & C.5th 203
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Neighbors: Samar (plaintiff) at 3411 School St. and Grady (defendants) at 3014 N. Fourth St.; their rear yards abut.
- Respondents installed five ~8-foot brick pillars with 360-degree pool lights (five 40-watt bulbs in glass housings) atop them after building a pool in 2014.
- Samar alleged the lights have shone onto his house since April 20, 2015, often until 4:00 a.m., illuminating his bedroom and preventing sleep.
- Respondents conceded keeping lights on late for perceived security and liability reasons, refused time limits or dimming, and disputed the claimed brightness effect on Samar’s home.
- Samar sought a preliminary injunction (filed May 8, 2015) requiring opaque covers or barriers so the lights do not shine on his residence; hearing held May 28, 2015.
- Court found Samar likely to succeed on a private-nuisance theory, irreparable harm (sleep deprivation), balanced equities in Samar’s favor, and ordered Respondents to install opaque covers within 20 days; bond of $1,500 required under Pa.R.C.P. 1531.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural bond requirement bars injunction | Samar filed for injunction and should be allowed to proceed | Grady argued procedural defects (bond) should prevent injunction | Court required Samar to post $1,500 bond and did not deny relief on procedural grounds |
| Whether lights constitute actionable private nuisance | Lights intentionally/ unreasonably invade Samar’s enjoyment of his land by preventing sleep | Lights are for security; not bright enough to affect Samar; right to use pool anytime | Court found invasion likely intentional/unreasonable and granted injunction |
| Whether harm is irreparable and compensable by money | Sleep deprivation is irreparable and not adequately remedied by damages | Defendants suggested remedies like curtains mean harm is not irreparable | Court held deprivation of sleep is irreparable; monetary damages inadequate |
| Appropriate equitable remedy to abate conduct | Samar sought lights blocked from shining on his home between 10 p.m.–8 a.m. | Grady refused time limits; preferred leaving lights on for security | Court ordered opaque covers/barriers on pillars (at defendants’ expense) to block light toward Samar; lights may remain on after shielding |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger By & Through Berger v. W. Jefferson Hill Sch. Dist., 669 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (bond requirement for preliminary injunction is mandatory)
- Greene Cnty. Citizens United v. Greene Cnty. Solid Waste Auth., 636 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (factors for fixing injunction bond and balancing equities)
- Hoffman v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 107 A.3d 288 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (elements required for mandatory preliminary injunction)
- Waschak v. Moffat, 109 A.2d 310 (Pa.) (private nuisance definition adoption)
- Diess v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 935 A.2d 895 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (private nuisance and Restatement §822 discussion)
- Kembel v. Schlegel, 478 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super.) (private nuisance elements)
- The York Group, Inc. v. Yorktowne Caskets, Inc., 924 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super.) (equitable jurisdiction to enjoin prejudicial acts)