In daily life, disputes over noise disturbance often occur. If someone deliberately creates noise disturbance, should they be held responsible? Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province, tried a neighboring pollution infringement dispute case and upheld the first instance judgment of the Jiujiang District People's Court in Wuhu City. The defendant Shen was ordered to compensate the plaintiff Li for various losses such as hotel accommodation fees, moving fees, and house termination of 26307.56 yuan, and to apologize in writing.

Li and Shen are neighbors going up and down the stairs. Shen believes that the behavior of minors in Li's family, such as "frequent running," "barefoot walking," and "dragging seats," has long produced noise that exceeds the normal range of life and has caused continuous disturbance to his own life. He has sought solutions through door-to-door communication, property coordination, WeChat suggestions, and other means, but to no avail. In September 2024, Shen used smart devices to remotely control the sound system and TV at home while traveling, playing dynamic music randomly at any time and deliberately creating continuous noise. Li reported to the police multiple times, but Shen did not merge and continued to create noise. Li then avoided the situation by staying in a hotel or moving out. In December of the same year, Shen was summoned by the public security organs and was given an administrative penalty of warning. Shen then stopped making noise. Later, Li sued Shen to the court, requesting that Shen be ordered to compensate for the losses and apologize in writing.

After trial, the People's Court of Jiujiang District believes that the evidence in the case reflects that Li's daily noise is generated by ordinary households during normal times and has not exceeded the necessary limit. However, the retaliatory measures taken by Shen were deliberately targeted and premeditated, and the infringement lasted for a long time. After multiple reports from Li, he still did not correct it. He deliberately played dynamic music in an irregular and random manner, deliberately infringing on Li's legitimate rights and interests in his normal life. The purpose was clear, causing damage to Li, and he should bear the liability for infringement. Therefore, Shen was ordered to compensate Li for hotel accommodation expenses, moving expenses, parking space termination losses, property termination losses, one-year rent increase losses, and agency fee losses totaling 26307.56 yuan, and to apologize in writing. Shen appealed against the first instance judgment.

After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City held that the daily behavior of Li's family was a normal part of family life and did not occur during obviously unreasonable periods, and there was insufficient evidence to prove that the noise generated by the relevant behavior had significantly exceeded the level that the general public could tolerate. Shen should protect his own rights and interests through legal channels such as negotiation, complaints, and litigation regarding such daily noise. Therefore, he does not support Shen's claim that his behavior is a legitimate "countermeasure". Although Li did not submit a report from a professional testing agency, the recorded audio he submitted is sufficient to demonstrate that the corresponding noise is clear and persistent. Combined with the administrative penalty decision of the public security organs, statements from both parties, and daily life experience, it can be determined that Shen's behavior has caused serious disturbance to Li's normal life and belongs to noise pollution. Shen deliberately used equipment to create intermittent noise, which is a malicious act of intentionally disturbing the peace of others' lives. It is necessary and reasonable for Li to avoid it by staying in hotels, moving out, and other means. The related expenses are causally related to Shen's infringement behavior of creating noise and should be supported. The Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City subsequently rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

This article is transferred from the WeChat official account "Shandong Gaofa". Thank you!