Nuisance Flashcards
(15 cards)
Define nuisance and 3 important elements
Winfield -** unlawful interference** with persons enjoyment of land or some right over it
- Unreasonable interference
- Interference with use Or enjoyment of land
- Actual damages must be proved
Private nuisance of 2 types:
1. Unreasonable interference with right of way attached to land
2. Wrongfully causing or allowing escape of things in other persons land - water, noise, etc
We must not our property such thag it cause discomfort to others. Yet temporary diacomfort is not actionable
- Every interference is not nuisance. Only unreasonable
- Rationale - every person must put up with some noise or smell so that other member of the society can enjoy their rights
- What is unreasonable varies from place to place - what would be nuisance near rashtrapathi bhavan will not be nuisance near chandini chowk
Radhey shyam vs gur prasad - vibrations from flour mill on ground floor discomfort to plaintiff in first floor. Everday discomfort not temporary. So actionalble.
Ushaben vs bhagyalakshmi chitra mandir - against jai santhosi ma. Hurt to religious feelings not an actionable wrong, only temporary discomfort. Moreover plaintifv free not to watch the movie again
Under tortbof nuisance person canot increase the liablitu of his neighbors by applying his own property to special use.
An act which is otherwise reasonable doesn’t become unreasonable just because of the sensitiveness of plaintiff or the use to whivh he put his property
- Robinson vs kilvert - paper box factory. Which is continuously kept warm and dry.
P rented downstairs to store special brown paper UNSUSUALLY sensitive to heat - Heath vs mayor of Brighton- church next to electricity generator
It is their unusual need for silence that is causing the problem.
Second elenent - interference with use Or enjoyment of land
- Interference may be either - injury to the property itself, injury to the health or comfort of occupants.
- Test - only substantial interference with comfort, NOT MERELY trifling inconvinience. How an avg man residing in the same area would take it
- Disturbances to neighbours throughout the night by noises of horse in a building converted to stable was held to be substantial interference
Defences to nuisance
- Prescription - can aquire right to commit pvt nuisance as an easememt if same has been peacefully and openly enjoyed as an easememt for 20 years -Struges vs BRIDGMAN
- statutory authority- every reasonable precaution taken
- Acting within the terms and conditions under license
Act done with the intention of annoying a neighbors and actually causing annoyance will be a nuisance
A lawful act may become unlawful if it is done with malicious intent to cause nuisance or harm to another.
This principle is known as “malice negates reasonableness” in nuisance cases.
Christy vs davey - neighbiur irritated by music lessons of c. Hammering against wall and banginv vessels
Davey’s actions were done with deliberate intent to annoy and constituted nuisance, even though making noise in one’s own house is generally not unlawful.
Tresspass vs nuisance
- Interference with posession of land vs interference with use /enjoyment of land
- Direct physical interference- planting a tree vs direct/indirect– projecting
- Actionable per se vs damages needs to be proved
- tangible object vs tangliibe / intangibles ( light or air )
Public nuisance
- Interference with rights of public in general
- Ipc 268
- No civil action. Multiplicity of torts.
- But special cases - spl damge in contrast to public at large, injury direct and not consequential, injury of substantial character.
Trench –> highway- public nuisance . A fell into it m
Public vs pvt nuisance
- Public at large vs pvt
- Ipc 268 vs tort
- Individual usually cannot sue
- no length of time can validate a public nuisance vs prescription
- Injunction vs damages
In a particular case the branch of tree growing on defendants land project on highway. Tort of nuisance
No. Because unike private land here no interference with the absolute right of the individual to enjoyment of his land
Noble vs harrison
The mere fact that a business is useful for persons generally inspite of it’s annoyance to plaintiff is no defence to tort of nuisance
Shelfer vs CITy of London electric lighting co. – building of an electric power house there were violent vibrations, damanged. Plaintiff property . Defence– without that construction whole of London would suffer of no light .
Plea rejected by court
Rationale : otherwise no public utility could be held liable for interference with right of individual
Difference between nuisnace and negligence. can a plaintiff claim both?
- Enjoyment of land vs breach of duty of care
- negligence deals with unreasonableness of defendants act, nuisace deals with unreasonableness of outcome rather than unreasonableness of defendants act
- Law of nuisance not designed to cover personal injuries ( deals with violation of land or interest over land ) which negligence does
- unlike negligence, a claimant seeks remedy in the form of an injuction rather than damage in case of nuisance
If the facts show both an unreasonable interference with the plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of land (nuisance) and a breach of duty of care (negligence), the plaintiff can plead both.
Flooding from a poorly maintained drain on defendant’s land
➤ Held: The facts supported claims in both negligence (failure to maintain) and nuisance (interference with land).
Case for defence of prescription
Struges vs BRIDGMAN - confectioner kitchen 20years heavy mortars and pestle. Neighbour, a physician made a consultation room in rear of his house and for the first time sound and vibration felt
Held that - no rights of prescription. Bcoz the sound were not actionable nuisance for 20 years and began only when physician build a room
What are ineffectual defences in case of nuisance
- Nuisance due to act of others ( nuisance caused by 100s of wheelbarrows at a place . Action can be brought against any one of them. No defence that his act itself couldn’t have caused nuisance )
- Public good
- Reasonable care
Rapier vs London tramways- stench amounting to nuisance from stables made to accommodate 200 horses to pull their tramway. Defence of Reasonable care to prevent the nuisance failed. Defendant held liable - Plaintiff coming to nuisance - Bills v. Hall, in an action for nuisance for offensive vapour, fumes, smell, and strenches” out of defendant’s tallow-chandlery, it was held to be no defense that the business had been continuing for three years before the plaintiff came to that place.
Remedies for nuisance
- Abatement - peaceful, w/o danger for life or limbs, proper notice if entering others property
- Damages
- Injunctions - must prove that compensation in the form of damages would be inadequate
