NUISANCE AS A CIVIL WRONG

NUISANCE

The word "nuisance" originates from the Old French word "nuire," meaning "to cause harm, or to annoy."

Nuisance as a tort refers to the unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.{1} It includes interference with the comfort, health or safety of an individual.

In other words, 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 common right. {2}

KINDS OF NUISANCE

There are two kinds of nuisance:

Public Nuisance

• Public Nuisance occurs when the right of the general public is interfered with.

• It is a crime.

• For example, obstructing a public way is a public nuisance.

• No private civil suit can be filed against an act of public nuisance until the injured private party can prove that special damage is suffered in addition to the damage suffered by the other members of the public.

• Proof of special damage is necessary to file a private civil suit.

  Private Nuisance

• Private Nuisance occurs when the right of a private party is interfered with.

• It is a civil wrong.

• For example, the destruction of crops by someone.

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

• Campbell V. Paddington Corporation {3}
  

Facts: The plaintiff owned a building in London with a view of an uninterrupted view of a highway. The funeral procession of the British king was to pass from the same highway. So, the plaintiff rented out seats to view the public procession. The defendants, a Metropolitan Borough, obstructed the view by erecting a stand, causing potential damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages.

Judgment: The defendant was held liable for nuisance and the plaintiff was held entitled to compensation.

• Dr. Ram Raj Singh V. Babulal {4}
  

Facts: the defendant created a brick grinding machine adjoining the premises of a doctor (the plaintiff). The dust generated by this machine entered the doctor’s premises and caused inconvenience to him and his patients. The doctor brought an action against the defendant.

Judgment: The defendant was held liable and a permanent injunction was issued against the defendant’s machine.

• Radhey Shyam V. Gur Prasad {5}

Facts: Radhey Shyam, the defendant, was planning to install and run a flour mill in the same premises where Gur Prasad, the plaintiff, resides. But the plaintiff filed a suit against him for a permanent injunction to restrain him from setting up the mill stating that it would cause injury to their peace as well as health if the mill was set up in the premises.

Judgment: A permanent injunction was issued against the defendant’s flour mill.

• Christie V. Davey {6}
  

Facts: The defendant was irritated by the considerable amount of musical noise from the premises of the plaintiff, who is a music teacher. Because of this the defendant intentionally caused discomfort to the plaintiff by hammering against the plaintiff’s wall. A suit was filed against the defendant by the plaintiff.

Judgment: The court issued an injunction against the defendant.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF PRIVATE NUISANCE

• Unreasonable Interference

In order to prove the wrong of nuisance, it is essential to show that there was unreasonable interference by the defendant. Here, unreasonable interference means interference that is more excessive than regular interference.

If the interference is not unreasonable, no action can be brought against the defendant. The public good is not a defence if the nuisance is unreasonable.

In case the plaintiff is more sensitive than a reasonable man and feels the interference to be more unreasonable then it cannot be termed as a nuisance. The interference must be unreasonable to a reasonable man.

• Interference with the use or enjoyment of land

When someone interferes with the use or enjoyment of the plaintiff's property, it can result in harm to the property itself, or it can lead to the plaintiff experiencing discomfort, compromised health, or reduced safety.

• Injury to Property

Interfering with the use of another person's property without permission by using tangible or intangible objects that cause harm to the property is considered actionable as a nuisance.

• Injury to comfort, health or safety

An act that significantly disrupts the comfort and convenience of using the property can be considered a nuisance. This disruption should result in substantial inconvenience and interfere with the overall comfort of those using the premises.

• Damage

Actual damage is required to be proved in an action for nuisance {7}. Along with damage, it must be shown that the damage was caused because of the unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of the land. In cases where there is no actual damage caused but there is a threat of damage, damage is assumed.

In the case of Barber v. Penley {8}, the plaintiff was the owner of a boarding house, and they experienced difficulties with access to their premises due to long queues at the defendant's theatre. As a result, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, and the court found the defendant liable for nuisance due to the obstruction caused by the queues.

DEFENCES

• Prescriptive right to commit nuisance

As per law, if a person has not objected to a potentially disturbing act for a long period of time then after such a passage of time, that person cannot turn around and complain of the act. A right to commit a private nuisance may be acquired as an easement if it has been peacefully and openly enjoyed as an easement, without interruption, and for 20 years {9}.

• Statutory authority

An act performed under or related to the authority of a statute provides complete defence. If someone unreasonably interferes with the right of private property under the authority of a statute then he cannot be held liable for private nuisance.

For instance, a railway company authorized to run railway trains on a track is not liable if, in spite of due care, the sparks from the engine set fire to the adjoining property. {10}

NUISANCE & TRESPASS

Both Nuisance and Trespass deal with the interference to the property. However, there are some differences between them:

• In trespass, there is direct interference while in nuisance, interference is consequential.

• For example, throwing stones at someone”s premises is trespassing while allowing stones from a ruinous chimney to fall upon someone’s premises is a nuisance.

• Interference with a person’s possession of land is trespass while interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land is nuisance.

• In trespass, interference is through tangible objects. In nuisance, interference can either be through tangible or intangible objects.

• Trespass is actionable per se, but in nuisance, damage caused has to be proved.

CONCLUSION

The tort of nuisance is a legal mechanism to balance individual property rights with communal interests. It addresses situations where one's use of property unreasonably interferes with another's enjoyment of their own property. Private nuisance protects individual rights to peaceful enjoyment. Public nuisance safeguards broader community interests. Effective remedies include damages and injunctions which are provided by the court to restore balance and prevent future harm. This legal concept is crucial because it ensures that everyone can enjoy their property without being disturbed by others, promoting respect and balance in society.

REFERENCES

{1} Winfield on Tort,7th ed., p. 193

{2} Pollock on Torts, 15th ed., p. 302

{3} (1815) 4 M.& S. 101

{4} A.I.R. 1982 All. 285

{5} A.I.R. 1978 All. 86

{6} (1893) 1 Ch. 316

{7} Nicholls V. Ely Beet Sugar Factory, (1936) Ch. 343

{8} (1893) 2 Ch. 447

{9} Sec. 15, Indian Easement Act & Sec. 25, Limitation Act, 1963

{10} Vaughan V. Taff Vale Rail Co., (1860) 5 H. and N. 697