Wietzke v. Chesapeake Conference Ass'n., 26 A.3d 931

Wietzke v. Chesapeake Conference Ass'n involved private nuisance and negligence claims arising from construction of a church parking lot in Montgomery County, Maryland, alleged to cause flooding of the Wietzke home.
The circuit court granted judgment for the Church on the negligence claim but left nuisance and trespass for the jury; several requested jury instructions about strict nuisance liability and defenses were denied.
Trial evidence showed a stormwater plan, a man-made stormwater pond, sediment controls, and county notices of violation during construction.
Experts for the Church testified that rainfall runoff originated from multiple sources and that the Church had taken measures to control runoff; Wietzkes offered lay testimony linking flooding to Church activity.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed most rulings but remanded on the negligence count related to a 2007 county violation (Section 19-16(a)); the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve nuisance instruction standards and related defenses.
The Court held that nuisance requires balancing use and interference (reasonableness) and upheld the trial court’s instruction; it reversed as to the negligence count concerning the 2007 county violation (Section 19-16(a)) and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nuisance is strict liability or balanced by reasonableness.	Wietzkes contend nuisance is strict liability.	Church argues nuisance involves balancing use and interference.	Nuisance is balanced use versus interference; instruction correct.
Whether County approval is a defense to nuisance liability.	County approval should not shield Church from nuisance liability.	Church did not rely on county approval as a defense.	County approval not a per se defense; judge properly refused the defense instruction.
Whether other contributing sources negate Church’s nuisance liability.	Evidence other sources contributed; Church should not be absolved.	Evidence did not show other sources absolve liability.	Instruction denying “other sources” defense was proper; nuisance still exists if Church changed water flow.
Whether the negligence count should have been submitted to the jury based on Section 19-16(a).	Section 19-16(a) violation by Church could establish negligence.	No proven causal link between the violation and flooding; no duty proven.	Court erred in granting summary judgment on negligence for the 2007 Notice; remanded for further proceedings on negligence.

Collins v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 417 Md. 217 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury instructions; three-part test)
Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. CAE-Link Corp., 330 Md. 115 (1993) (nuisance may be strict liability but balance persists in nuisance law)
Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Malone, 73 Md. 268 (1890) (reasonableness of use essential to nuisance in fact; protect public and private interests)