Law of Torts 2022 Nuisance

NUISANCE – TORTS

 Nuisance ordinarily means anything which annoys, hurts or that which is offensive.
 Nuisance is a continuing wrong, it should be there for a continuous period of time, it
should not be momentary.

Definitions of Nuisance
Salmond - “The wrong of nuisance consists in causing or allowing without
lawful justification the escape of any deleterious thing from his land or from
elsewhere into land in possession of the plaintiff, e.g. water, smoke, fumes,
gas, noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease, germs, animals”.
Pollock - “Nuisance is the wrong done to a man by unlawfully disturbing him in
the enjoyment of his property, or, in some cases, in the exercise of a common
right.”
Stephen - “anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements of
another, and not amounting to a trespass.”

Types of Nuisance
Public Nuisance – covered under IPC (Section 268)
o Unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful interference with a right common
among general public
o Public nuisance does not create a civil cause of action for any person. In order
that an individual may have a private right of action in respect of a public
nuisance:
- He must show special and particular injury to himself beyond that
which is suffered by the rest of public.
- Such injury must be direct, and not a mere consequential injury; as,
where one way is obstructed, but another is left open.
- The injury must be shown to be of a substantial character.

YG LAW 1
Law of Torts 2022 Nuisance

Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal (1928)

Plaintiff was a doctor, his patients were caused inconvenience and
discomfort from the defendant’s brick powdering mill, this was held as
Private nuisance because special damage to the plaintiff had been
proved.
St. Helen Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865).
Fumes from defendant’s manufacturing work damaged plaintiff’s trees
and shrubs. This was held as private Nuisance

Private Nuisance – covered under Tort Law.

Essentials of Nuisance under Tort Law:

Plaintiff should have right to use/enjoy the land: A guest at your property
can’t sue the third person for causing nuisance, the person bringing in the tort
action should have a right over the land to bring a case of Nuisance.
Defendant should be doing unreasonable use of land causing Unreasonable
interference or damages: The interference may be injury to the property itself
(like fumes from a factory destroying trees of neighbouring land) or it may be injury to
comfort or health of occupants of certain property (like playing unreasonably loud
music all the time and thus disrupting comfort of neighbours). The interference should
be substantial, not a mere inconvenience or trifling. An act, which is otherwise
reasonable, doesn't become unreasonable and actionable due to the
sensitiveness of the plaintiff.
Robinson v Kilver (1889)
Facts: The defendants operated a factory which made paper boxes. This
required the factory to be continually warm and dry to ensure that the paper
boxes were in good condition. The claimant rented the ground floor and used
this area to store special brown paper. The heat from the defendant’s factory
damaged this brown paper, which was unusually sensitive to heat, and the
claimant sued in nuisance.
Held: Court held that a person carrying on an exceptionally delicate trade
cannot complain if an injury Is caused by his neighbour doing something lawful
on his property

Nuisance should be Continous

Ball v. Ray (1873).
Disturbances to neighbours throughout the whole night by the noises of
horses in a building converted into a stable was held to be unreasonable
interference.

YG LAW 2
Law of Torts 2022 Nuisance

Defences Under Nuisance

Prescription: A right to do an act, which would otherwise be a private
nuisance, may be acquired by prescription (i.e. by elapse of certain number of
years)
o In India you get prescription at the expiration of 20 years (Section 26 of
Limitation Act and Section 15 of the Easements Act.)
Mohini Mohan v. Kashinath Roy (1909)
Question was, Whether there was an easement acquired by the
plaintiffs in this suit to hold something in the nature of a musical
festival once or twice a year on the plot of ground which is the
subject of dispute. Court held that Right of doing Kirtan twice a
year upon another’s land doesn’t grant you an easement, a right
to do the same can be acquired if it qualifies as a custom, but that
was also not the case in this dispute.

Statutory authority: A Statute authorising a particular act or the use of land

in a way is a defence of nuisance.

Defences which don’t work

Nuisance due to act of others- Sometimes the act of two or more persons,
acting independently of each other, may constitute a nuisance although the act
of any one of them alone would not be so.
Lambton v. Mellish (1894)
Two merry-go-round owners were competing for business and were
doing noise pollution with the use of loud speaker. Carrying on trade
which causes intolerable noises is nuisance, but here it was claimed that
the other persons loud speaker was louder. Court held that Both
contributed to the totality of the nuisance

Public good- It is no defence to say that what is a nuisance to a particular

plaintiff is beneficial to the public in general, otherwise, the public utility
undertaking could be held liable for the unlawful interference with the rights
of individuals.
Reasonable care- Use of reasonable care to prevent nuisance is generally no
defence.
Plaintiff coming to nuisance- It is no defence that the plaintiff himself came to
the place of nuisance. A person cannot be expected to refrain from buying a
land on which nuisance already exists.

YG LAW 3
Law of Torts 2022 Nuisance

Remedies for Nuisance

1. Damages
Damages may be offered in terms of compensation to the aggrieved party. The
purpose of the damages is not just compensating the individual who has
suffered but also making the defendant realise his mistakes and deter him in
future
2. Injunction
An injunction is a judicial order restraining a person from doing or continuing
an act which might be threatening or invading the legal rights of another. It
may be in the form of a temporary injunction or permanent injunction.

Ushaben Navinchandra Trivedi v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandal (1977)

The plaintiff had sued the defendant for a permanent injunction to restrain the
defendant from showing a movie named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Plaintiff claimed
contents of the movie significantly hurt the religious sentiments of the people
belonging to the Hindu community as the movie showed Hindu Goddess’ Laxmi,
Parvati, and Saraswati, to be jealous of one another and were ridiculed in the film. It
was held that hurt to religious sentiments was not an actionable wrong.

3. Abatement of Nuisance
 An occupier of land is permitted to abate, i.e. to terminate by his own
act, nuisance which is affecting his land. For example, he may cut the
branches (overhanging)
 a 'notice' to the other party is required unless the nuisance constitute a
danger to the life or property. When the abatement is possible without
going on the wrongdoer's land, the same may be done without notice.

Trespass v. Nuisance
Trespass is a direct interference with a person’s possession of the land and it takes
place through material objects. It is prima facie actionable that means that there is
no need to prove damage in trespass.
Ex: If you enter someone’s private property wrongfully and come out without
doing any damage, that will also be actionable under Trespass.
Nuisance is a more indirect form of a tort which deals with the interference with a
person’s enjoyment of land. it does not specifically take place through a tangible
medium and damage has to be proved to make a case of nuisance.
Ex. Burning wood at your land but all the smoke going in other’s land
causing him interference to enjoy his land.

YG LAW 4
Law of Torts 2022 Nuisance

Other Important Case Laws

Solatu v. De Held (1851).
The plaintiff resided in a house next to a Roman Catholic Chapel of which the
defendant was the priest and the chapel bell was rung at all hours of the day
and night. It was held that the ringing was a public nuisance and the plaintiff
was held entitled to an injunction.

Malton Board OF Health v. Malton Manure Co. (1879)

Carrying on trade which causes offensive smells is nuisance, you can remember
this case law with the help of its name, Manure smells bad, so Malton Manure
Co. case is about Nuisance due to offensive smells.

Campbell v Paddington Corpn. (1911).

An uninterrupted view of the funeral procession of King Edward VIII could be
had from the window of the plaintiff's building. So the plaintiff sold tickets for
the same. The defendant corporation constructed a stand on the highway in
front of the plaintiff’s building, which obstructed the view. On account of this
obstruction, the prospective lessees refused to come to observe the
procession from the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of
damages. The stand erected by the borough was held to be a nuisance and the
plaintiff was found to be entitled to recover the profit which but for the
defendants’ act she might have made by letting seats as damages.

Noble v Harrison (1926).

The branch of a tree overhanging on the highway was not considered nuisance,
nor was the nuisance created by its fall as the defendant neither knew or could
have known that the branch would break and fall. But if it was private land
instead of public highway then it would constitute as nuisance, as there is an
interference with enjoyment of one's property.

Attorney General v. P.Y.A Quarries (1957)

The defendants operated a quarry and used a blasting technique which
emitted large quantities of dust and noise, as well as causing vibrations which
interfered with the enjoyment of land for many individuals in the area.
Court held that nuisance from vibration from quarry causing personal
discomfort to a large number of people is public nuisance

YG LAW 5