Opinion by
Thоmas Talley (Defendant) appeals to this Court from an order of thе Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County which found him guilty of two violations of Ordinance 367 of the Borough of Trainer (Borough), Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (January 11, 1968), and fined him $150 plus costs. 1 The sole issue presented in this ease is whether the lower court was arbitrary and capricious in reaching this conclusion.
It is well established that a municipal ordinance whiсh seeks to abate the storage of wrecked, junked, or abandoned vehicles cannot declare the mere presencе of such vehicles on any given piece of property to be a nuisance per se.
Commonwealth v. Hanzlik,
The specific ordinance in this ease wаs properly interpreted by the court below as imposing such a burden on the Borough. It then concluded that the Borough did produce sufficiеnt evidence to establish a nuisance in fact. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we do not believe that the court was arbitrary and capricious in holding as it did.
It is clear from the record that a long standing disрute existed between Defendant and the Borough concerning the condition of the property where Defendant carried on his automobile body repair business. Numerous bona fide attempts made by Borough officials to have Defendant correct the condition were met with outright recalcitrance and only grudging, partial complianсe. The record, as supplemented by photographic evidence, reveals that numerous wrecked, junked, and abandoned vehiсles were located on Defendant’s property; that auto рarts and related debris — fenders and bumpers with jagged edges, transmissions, wheеls, tires, broken glass — were strewn about the property; and that many of thе vehicles closely abutted and partially impinged upon a public sidewalk frequently used by children going to and from school.
While it is true that therе was no evidence that injuries had actually occurred on Defendant’s property, certainly it is not the law that injuries need have occurred before a condition is adjudged a nuisance and thereby abated. In short, our review of the whole record indicates that the actual condition of Defendant’s property was of such a nature as to give rise to а conclusion that the storage of wrecked, junked, and abandoned vehicles thereon constituted *444 a public hazard and, thereby, a nuisance in fact within the meaning of the ordinance. Though the mere prеsence of such vehicles on a person’s property cannot, in and of itself, support such a finding, we do believe that the presence of such vehicles, combined with the conditions and factors discussed above, may create a public hazard and support а finding of nuisance in fact. We do not believe, therefore, that the lоwer court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in reaching its conclusion. We affirm.
Order
And Now, this 9th day of November, 1978, the order of the Court of Commоn Pleas of Delaware County dated March 8, 1977, is hereby affirmed.
Notes
The ordinаnce provides in pertinent part as follows: ARTICLE III — PRIVATE PROPERTY — SECTION 1. Abandoned Vehiclеs. It shall be unlawful to park, store or leave any vehicle of any kind in a wrecked, junked, stripped or abandoned condition, or any automobile whether occupied or not, in a place where its presence constitutes a hazard on private property. . . .