Nuisance
Introduction
• Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with a person's use or
enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. Acts
interfering with comfort, health or safety are the examples of it. The
interference may be any way, e.g., noise, vibrations, heat, smoke, smell,
fumes, water, gas, electricity, excavation or disease producing germs.
• Nuisance should be distinguished from trespass. Trespass is : (i) a direct
physical interference, (ii) with the plaintiff's possession of land, (iii) through
some materials or tangible object.
• To throw stones upon one's neighbour's premises is a wrong of trespass; to
allow stones from a ruinous chimney to fall upon those premises is the
wrong of nuisance
• Nuisance can be committed through the medium of
intangible objects also like vibrations, gas, noise, smell,
electricity or smoke.
Kinds of Nuisance
• (i) Public or Common Nuisance.
• (ii) Private Nuisance, or Tort of Nuisance.
• Public nuisance is a crime whereas private nuisance is a civil wrong. Public nuisance is
interference with the right of public in general and is punishable as an offence. Obstructing a
public way by digging a trench, or constructing structures on it are examples of public
nuisance.
• In Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, A.I.R. 1982 All. 285 the defendant created 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. The dust entered the
consulting chamber of the plaintiff and caused physical inconvenience to him and patients,
and their red coating on clothes, caused by the dust, could be apparently visible. It was held
that special damages to the plaintiff had been proved and a permanent injunction was issued
against the defendant restraining him from running his brick grinding machine there.
Private Nuisance
• Its essentials the following essentials are required to be proved to
constitute the tort of nuisance :
• 1) Unreasonable interference;
• 2) Interference with the use of enjoyment of land;
• 3) Damage.
• Unreasonable interference: Interference may cause damage to the plaintiff's
property or may cause personal discomfort to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of
property. Every interference is not a nuisance. To constitute nuisance the
interference should be unreasonable. Every person must put up with some noise,
some vibrations, some smell, etc. so that members of the society can enjoy their own
rights.
• In Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad, A.I.R. 1978 All. 86 Gur Prasad and another
filed a suit against Radhey Shyam and others for a permanent injunction to
restrain them from installing and running a flour mill in their premises, It
was alleged that the said mill would cause nuisance to the plaintiffs, who
were occupying the first floor portion of the same premises inasmuch as
the plaintiffs would lose their peace on account of rattling noise of the flour
mill and thereby their health would also be adversely affected. It was held
that substantial addition to the noise in a noisy locality, by the running of
the impugned machines, seriously interfered with the physical comfort of
the plaintiffs and as such, it amounted to nuisance, and the plaintiffs were
entitled to an injunction against the defendants.
• 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 of Bradford Corp. v. Pickles, (1895) A.C. 587; (1895) 64 L.J.
Ch. 597 the House of Lords held that if an act is otherwise lawful, it
does not become unlawful merely because the same has been done
with an evil motive. Lord Macnaughten said : "It is the act, not the
motive for the act, that must be regarded. If the act, apart from
motive, gives rise merely to damage without legal injury, the motive,
however reprehensible it may be, will not supply that element.
Interference with the use or
enjoyment of Land
• Injury to property: An unauthorized interference with the
use of the property of another person through some
object, tangible or intangible, which causes damage.
• In St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, (1865) 11 H.L. Cas
642 fumes from the defendant company's works damaged
plaintiff's trees and shrubs. Such damage being an injury
to property, it was held that the defendants were liable.
The plea that locality was devoted to works of that kind
was unsuccessful. to the property, is actionable as
nuisance.
Damage
• Trespass, which is actionable per se, actual damage is required to be
proved in an action for nuisance. In the case of public nuisance, the
plaintiff can bring an action in tort only when he proves a special
damage to him. In private nuisance, although damage is one of the
essentials, the law will often presume it.
• In Fay v. Prentice, (1854) 1 C.B. 828 a cornice of the defendant's
house projected over the plaintiff's garden. It was held that the mere
fact that the cornice projected over the plaintiff's garden raises a
presumption of fall of rain water into and damage to the garden and
the same need not be proved. It was a nuisance.