In a recent ruling by the La Matanza Civil and Commercial Court of Appeal, the judge overturned a first instance judgment and ordered a food company to compensate a neighboring family Failure to comply with a noise abatement agreement from a neighboring factory. The decision ordered the payment of more than three million pesos in moral damages and costs, according to the filing.
The plaintiff consists of a man and a woman who live in a house in the city with their minor daughter Lomas del MiradorLa Matanza district. The three, who purchased the home in 2010 and moved in after renovations in 2014, said their quality of life changed when they began living with the constant noise of a food production plant just meters from their home.
The conflict arose shortly after the move. According to the lawsuit, the production activity, which was approved by the municipality to operate during extended working hours, is caused noticeable noises and vibrations in various surroundings of the single-family home. Given the lack of effective response from the neighboring company, the family filed a series of complaints with both factory officials and city authorities.
According to court documents, in 2014 and 2015, local authorities confirmed that noise continued. During this period, the company was obliged to take measures to reduce noise pollution. Despite some technical interventions and the carrying out of works such as the installation of insulation devices and the relocation of equipment, The symptoms continued every day at home.
The controversy lasted several years. Between 2015 and 2016, the parties participated in mediation cases in which a technical report was analyzed that identified the sources of the most noticeable vibrations and noises. This process resulted in a transaction agreement that established the company’s commitment to acoustically isolate certain machines and complete the required tasks within a maximum period of sixty days. The agreement was approved by the court on August 8, 2017.
Despite it, The family claimed that the company never fully fulfilled the promised workas the main source of noise pollution continued to cause damage. The court presentation also referred to the costs incurred in purchasing soundproofing panels during the lockdown due to the pandemic and argued that these were essential for the night’s sleep to function properly.
In 2021, the plaintiffs decided to expand the claim and attach invoices for these devices, but without being able to prove their actual installation throughout the property. The first instance court case ended in June 2024 with a dismissal judgment for the plaintiffswhose action was dismissed on the grounds that the breach of contract or the claimed damages had not been proven and costs (litigation costs) were imposed on it.
The family filed an appeal against this decision, which was heard in Hall I of the La Matanza Court of Appeal. The defendant company’s defense argued that it had fully complied with the agreement and that if new inconveniences arose, a new meeting of the parties should have been convened before any legal action, as provided for in the agreement.
The Chamber judges analyzed the background of the case and concluded that the evidence included in the file, including reports from technicians and witness statements, confirmed this, although there had been previous work and mediations The company failed to demonstrate that it had completed the installation of soundproofing on the machine identified as the cause of the problem.. Among other things, material invoices and statements from people who confirmed the continued existence of noises were evaluated.
According to the decision, the moral damage is a natural consequence of the company’s failure to comply with its obligation to isolate the packaging machine in order to reduce the inconvenience to the family, which is why it recognized non-material damage in favor of the actors. The chamber also accepted the origin of the reimbursement of proven expenses for noise insulation.
Instead, the judges They excluded claims for diminished value of property and psychological harm Understanding that there was not enough specialist knowledge or expert medical evidence to support such chapters. The court’s assessment focused exclusively on the general psychological suffering associated with forced living with noise.
The court set the total compensation at $3,036,593, discriminating three million pesos for moral damage and $36,593 for expenses related to the purchase of materials to improve soundproofing. The judges ordered payment with interest from previous dates and noted that the defendant had been ordered to pay costs in both cases.
In its arguments, the Court of Appeal reiterated the binding nature of contracts and the importance of maintaining good faith and cooperation between parties in neighborhood disputes, as well as the need to maintain adequate living conditions in residential properties in accordance with the provisions of the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code.
About The Author
