damage-mitigation damages maryland
How can I compel my neighbor to address damage they are causing my property?
<p>My neighbor has an energy efficient low e window. They have had it for about 10 years, but over time it has slowly been causing damage (melting) our vinyl siding. <a href="http://www.wral.com/glare-from-energy-efficient-windows-can-melt-siding-vehicles/13614716/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article (<em>Glare from energy-efficient windows can melt siding, vehicles</em>)</a> details the way the damage occurs. Pictured below is an example of said damage which is very similar to mine.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/6I5W5.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/6I5W5m.jpg" alt="Melting siding" title="click for full size" /></a></p>
<p>My neighbor is unwilling to talk about it, despite multiple attempts to speak with them. I have tried to explain the situation to them, and have offered to cover 100% of the expenses to simply add a full screen (currently there is a half screen, but I believe adding a full screen would help alleviate the issue), but they refuse to speak to me about it, and deny that their window does any kind of damage. I'm not seeking monetary damages necessarily, I simply want to stop further damage from occurring.</p>
<p>What legal recourse do I have? This is in the state of Maryland.</p>

<p>I do not believe you have a remedy. The legal theory upon which a lawsuit or legal right would be based is that the windows constitute a &quot;private nuisance&quot;. In Maryland, in a case involving an alleged light related nuisance, a recent appellate court decision set forth the legal standard an reviewed its application in the case of a drive in theater:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A finding of private nuisance requires a two-part analysis: (1)
viewing the defendant's activity, was the interference unreasonable
and substantial? and (2) viewing the plaintiff's alleged harm, was the
inconvenience or harm caused by the interference objectively
reasonable?</p>
<p>First, the court found that Bengies failed to present
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Royal Farms' use of its lights
at nighttime was unreasonable and substantial:</p>
<p>The Royal Farms' lighting is not aimed or directed or oriented towards
the drive-in.... There is simply no reasoned or rational basis to
conclude that these <strong>very typical and ordinary commercial lights,
employed lawfully by a business on the far side of the road from the
drive-in could conceivably have constituted the type of substantial
and unreasonable interference with the operation of the drive-in
required by Maryland Law</strong> before a fact-finder can conclude that there
is nuisance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>Blue Ink, Ltd. v. Two Farms, Inc</em>., 96 A.3d 810, 821 (Md. Spec. App. 2014). <em>Cf. Brozynski v. Kerney</em>, 2006 WL 2160841, at *2 (Tex. App.--Waco Aug. 2, 2006) (glare from all night use of very bright Christmas lights did not, as a matter of law, constitute a private nuisance, but the suit was not so devoid of an argument for a change in the law that it was sanctionable as frivolous without evidence of an intent to harass by bringing the suit).</p>
<p>An energy efficient window would generally constitute the same kind of &quot;typical and ordinary&quot; building material &quot;employed lawfully&quot; (and, indeed, sometimes required by building codes).</p>
<p>Most jurisdictions would not recognize window glare as a &quot;nuisance&quot; and would consider the melting of your siding to be ordinary wear and tear that you must bear and replace from time to time.</p>
