Nuisance

Nuisance as a Tort means unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land., or some right over
or in connection with it, acts interfering with comfort ,health or safety are examples of it, the interference may
be any thing , noise , heat smoke ,smell etc
Nuisance must be distinguished from trespass , trespass is a direct physical interference, , with the plaintiffs
possession of land with some material or tangible object, if interference is direct the wrong is trespass, if its
consequential it amounts to nuisance, planting a tree in another's land is trespass, but when a person plants
his tree on his own land and the branches fall inside somebodies else's land , it is nuisance, in trespass
interference is always with some tangible object, , nuisance can be committed through medium of intangible
object
Apart from that trespass is actionable per se, but in nuisance special damage has to be proved
Kinds of nuisance
 Public or common nuisance
 Private or tort of nuisance
Public nuisance is a crime whereas private nuisance is a civil wrong, obstructing a way by digging a trench,
or constructing structures on it are examples of public nuisance and is covered under criminal law, a public
nuisance becomes a private nuisance . If a person suffers a special damage
Nuisance
Dr Ram Raj Singh vs BabuLal- A.I,R 1982
The defendant constructed a brick grinding machine , Adjoining the premises of the plaintiff who was a
medical practitioner, the brick grinding machine generated dust, which polluted the atmosphere. Which
harmed the plaintiff. It was proved that special damage was done to the plaintiff , and a permanent injunction
was ordered to stop running the brick grinding machine
Rose vs Miles 1815- the defendant wrongfully moored his barge across public navigable creck. This blocked
the way for the plaintiffs barges and the plaintiff had to incur considerable loss in unloading the cargo and
transporting the same by land. It was claimed there was a special damage caused to the plaintiff
Campbell vs Peddington Corporation 1911- The case of funeral procession of king Edward vii
Private nuisance or tort of nuisance
The following essentials are required to constitute the tort of nuisance
 Unreasonable interference
 Interference with the use of enjoyment of land
 Damage
Unreasonable interference
Every nuisance is not an interference, the interference must be unreasonable
Radhey Shyam vs Gur Prasad AIR 1978
Gur Prasad and another filed a case against Radhey Shyam and others , for a permanent injunction to
restrain them from restraining and installing and running a flour mill in their premises, it was alleged that the
said mill would cause nuisance to the plaintiff who were occupying the first floor portion of the same premises,
this amounted to nuisance and the plaintiff were entitled to an injunction against the defendant
Usha Ben vs Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir A.I.R 1978
The plaintiff appellants sued the defendant- respondent for a permanent injunction to restrain them from
exhibiting the film Jai Santoshi Maa, it was contended that the exhibition of the film was a nuisance , because
the plaintiffs religious feelings were hurt, it was held that hurt to religious feelings was not an actionable
wrong, the plaintiffs were free not to see the movie again. The balance of convenience was considered to be
not in favour of the defendants so there was no nuisance
Sensitive Plaintiff
The act which is otherwise reasonable does not become unreasonable and actionable when the damage is
caused solely due to sensitiveness of the plaintiff. If a certain kind of traffic is no nuisance to a healthy man , it
will not entitle a sick man to bring an action if he suffers thereby. Even though the damage be substantial
In Heath vs Mayor of Brighton
The court refused to grant injunction in favour of the incumbent and trustees of a Brighton Church to restrain a
buzzing noise from the defendants power- station, it was found in this case that the noise did not cause any
annoyance to any other person but the incumbent nor was the noise such as to distract the attention of
ordinary persons attending the church
Does Nuisance connote state of affairs
Nuisance is generally a continuing wrong , a constant noise, smell or vibration is a nuisance and ordinarily an
isolated act of escape cannot be considered to be a nuisance
In stone vs Bolton
The Plaintiff was standing on a highway, was injured by a cricket ball hit from the defendants ground, but she
could not succeed in her action for nuisance , here the judge said that an action , A nuisance must be state of
affairs , however temporary and not merely an isolated happening, but in the court of appeal, it was held that
isolated acts of escape of dangerous things could entitle the plaintiff to recover from damages , thus whether
the wrongful escape is wrongful , intermittent or isolated it is actionable
Malice
Does an act , otherwise lawful become a nuisance if the act of the defendant has been actuated by an evil
motive to annoy the plaintiff
In Mayor Bradford Corporation by Pickels 1895.. The house of lords held that if an act is otherwise lawful ,
does not become unlawful merely because the same has been done with an evil motive, the house of lords
reaffirmed the above principles Allen vs Flood
How ever if the act of the defendant which is done with an evil motive , becomes an unreasonable
interference , it becomes actionable in Christie vs Davey , the defendant ,being irritated by considerable
amount of music lessons by the plaintiff, by hammering against the party wall, beating of tray , whistling and
shrieking . The court granted an injunction against the defendant
This case was followed in Holly wood Silver Fox Farm Ltd vs Emmett 1936
2) Interference with the use or enjoyment of land
• Interference may cause either 1) Injury to the property itself
• 2)Injury to comfort and health of occupants of certain property
Injury to property
An unauthorized interference with the use of property of another person through some object tangible or
intangible,. Which causes damages to the property is actionable as nuisance
S,T Helen’s Smelting Company Vs Tipping- Fumes from the defendants Company damaged plaintiffs trees
and shrubs, such damage being an injury to property , it was held that the defendant was liable
Interference with right to light and air
England- Right to light is not a natural right and may be acquired by grant of prescription, when such a right
has thus been acquired a substantial interference with it is an actionable nuisance In Colls vs Home and
colonial stores ltd 1904-the construction of a building by the defendant only diminished into a room on the
ground floor, which was used as office and for which electric light was otherwise required, it was held that the
defendant was not liable
Right to Air
It is possible to require a right of air by grant and prescription, when such a right is acquired a substantial
interference with it is an actionable nuisance
Webb vs Bird 1861
A construction of a building by the defendants blocked the passage of air to the plaintiffs ancient windmill, it
was held that the plaintiff did not acquire any perspective right to prevent the construction of the building and
therefore there was no cause of action, a right to access of air through some defined channel may however
be acquired in Bass vs Gregory 1890, the defendants blocked a shaft by means of which the plaintiffs public
house had received ventilation for forty years , it was held to be a nuisance
India
In India the right to light and air can be acquired by easement sec 25 of limitation Act
1963 and sec 15 Indian Easement Act 1882 make similar provisions regarding mode
and period of enjoyment required to acquire this prescriptive right
The prescriptive right of easement of access and use of light and air can be acquired if
the light has been
Peaceably enjoyed
As an easement
As of right
Without interruption
For 20 years
Where there is substantial infringement of an easement of light and air, the same is actionable by an action
for damages according to sec 33 of the Indian Easement Act, it was held in Colis v Home and Colonial Stores
Ltd (1904) sec 33 of the Indian Easement Act provides as follows
Suit for disturbance of Easement- the owner of any interest in the dominant heritage, or the occupier of
such heritage may institute a suit for compensation for the disturbance of the easement or any right
necessary there to , provided that the easement has actually caused substantial damage to the plaintiff, In
Polsue and Alfieri Ltd v Rushmere , the plaintiff who was living in a noisy locality, brought an action to
prevent the defendant company from installing printing machinery next door due to which the plaintiff and his
family had to remain awake at night, since there was serious addition to the noise already there , the court
granted an injunction against the defendants,
Injury to comfort of health-
Substantial interference with the comfort and convenience of using the premises is actionable as a nuisance,
a mere trifling and a fanciful inconvenience is not enough
Damage
Unlike trespass which is actionable perse, actual damage is required to be proved in an action for nuisance,
in case of public nuisance a person can bring action for tort only in case he proves a case of special damage
to him, in private offences damage is one of the essentials the law will presume.
Fay v Prentice – cornice case
Nuisance on Highways
Obstructing a highway or creating dangers on it or in close proximity to it is a nuisance
Barber v Penley 1893
Case of theatre and boarding house
Wale vs Garston Haulage company ltd (1914)- case of lorry and attached trailer
Projections
As regards projections on highways by objects like overhanging branches of trees or a clock from a building
or land adjoining the highway no action can be brought for such projections unless some damage is caused
thereby.
Noble vs Harrison 1926
Tarry vs Ashton
Defences
Some defences are valid and some are invalid
Valid or effectual Defences
o Prescriptive Right to Commit Nuisance
A right to do an act which would otherwise be a nuisance may be acquired by prescription, if a person has
continued with an activity on some other persons land for twenty years or more , he requires a legal
prescription to continue doing it in future, A right to commit a private nuisance may be acquired as an
easement if the same has been peaceably and openly enjoyed for a period of 20 years or more, on the
expiration of t20 years the nuisance becomes legalised ab initio
Case of Sturges v Bridgman 1859,-
Confectioner and physician case
o Statutory Authority
An act done by the authority of a statute is a complete defence, thus for example a Railway Company
authorised to run railway trains on a track are not liable if in spite of due care , the sparks of the engine set fire
to the adjoining property, or the value of the adjoining property is depreciated by the noise , vibrations and
smoke by running of trains as held in Vaughan vs Taff Vale Railway co 1860
Ineffectual Defences
 Nuisance due to act of others
Some times act of two or more persons acting independently of each other may cause nuisance, although the
act of any one of them alone would not be so
 Public Good
It is no defence to say that what is nuisance to a particular plaintiff is beneficial to the public in general
otherwise no public undertaking could be liable for the unlawful interference with the rights of individuals
Cases
Shelfer v City of London Electric lighting Company 1895
Adam vs Ursel 1862
 Reasonable care
Use of reasonable care to prevent nuisance is generally no defence
Rapier vs London Tramway Company
Plaintiff coming to place of nuisance
It is no defence that plaintiff came to place of nuisance, A person cannot refrain from a land on which a
nuisance already exists and the plaintiff can recover even if nuisance has been going on long before he
visited the place