Nuisance: Introduction and Types | Law of Torts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• Nuisance, in legal terms, refers to an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right associated with it. This interference can occur through various means such as noise, vibrations, heat, smell, smoke, fumes, water, gas, electricity, excavation, or disease-causing germs.
• It's important to differentiate nuisance from trespass. Trespass involves a direct physical interference with the plaintiff's possession of land through tangible objects. While both nuisance and trespass require the plaintiff to show possession of land, some types of nuisance can also be considered continuing trespasses.

Distinction between Nuisance and Trespass

• Direct vs. Consequential Interference: If the interference is direct, it constitutes trespass. For example, planting a tree on someone else's land is trespass. However, if a person plants a tree on their own land and the roots or branches extend into the neighbor's land, it becomes nuisance. Similarly, throwing stones onto a neighbor's property is trespass, while allowing stones from a crumbling chimney to fall onto their property is nuisance.
• Possession vs. Use or Enjoyment: Trespass involves interference with a person's possession of land, whereas nuisance pertains to interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land. Nuisance can occur without affecting possession. For instance, creating offensive smells or noises on one's own land can cause nuisance to a neighbor without interfering with their possession.
• Tangible vs. Intangible Objects: Trespass always involves interference through tangible objects, while nuisance can be committed through intangible objects such as vibrations, gas, noise, smell, electricity, or smoke.

Kinds of Nuisance

Nuisance can be classified into two types:

• Public or Common Nuisance
• Private Nuisance or Tort of Nuisance

Public Nuisance

• Public nuisance is a legal concept where certain actions interfere with the rights of the general public, making it a punishable offense. Unlike private nuisance, which is a civil wrong, public nuisance affects the community as a whole.
• Examples of public nuisance include obstructing a public way by digging a trench or constructing structures on it. For instance, digging a trench on a public highway can cause inconvenience to the public at large.
• In cases of public nuisance, individuals who suffer more damage than the general public can file a lawsuit. For example, if someone is severely injured by falling into a trench, they can sue in tort. To sustain a civil action for public nuisance, proof of special and particular damage is necessary.
• Special damage allows a plaintiff to bring a civil action for what might otherwise be considered a public nuisance. For instance, if horses and wagons standing outside a house for an unreasonable time create darkness, bad smell, and obstruct customer access, the damage is considered 'particular, direct, and substantial,' giving the occupier the right to take legal action.

Cases Illustrating Public Nuisance

• Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal: In this case, the defendant set up a brick grinding machine next to the plaintiff's premises, causing dust pollution. The dust entered the plaintiff's consulting chamber, causing physical discomfort to him and his patients. The court found that special damages were proven, leading to a permanent injunction against the defendant from operating the machine.
• Rose v. Milles: The defendant improperly moored his barge across a public navigable creek, blocking the plaintiff's barges. As a result, the plaintiff incurred significant expenses in unloading and transporting cargo by land. The court ruled that special damage was inflicted on the plaintiff, supporting his claim.

Private Nuisance or Tort of Nuisance

To establish the tort of nuisance, certain key elements must be demonstrated. These include:

Essentials of Private Nuisance

• Unreasonable interference
• Interference with the use or enjoyment of land
• Damage

Unreasonable Interference

• Unreasonable interference can harm the plaintiff's property or cause personal discomfort in the enjoyment of their property.
• Not every interference qualifies as a nuisance; it must be unreasonable.
• Individuals must tolerate some level of noise, vibration, smell, etc., to allow society to function.
• For instance, living near a busy road means accepting some traffic-related inconvenience.
• Similarly, if a neighbor's radio affects your studies but is not unreasonable, legal action cannot be taken.

Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prashad

• In this case, Gur Prasad and others sued Radhey Shyam and others to stop them from setting up a flour mill on their property.
• The plaintiffs claimed the mill would disturb their peace with its noise, impacting their health.
• The court ruled that the mill's noise significantly added to the already noisy area, causing discomfort to the plaintiffs.
• Since this interference was deemed unreasonable, it constituted a nuisance, and the plaintiffs were granted an injunction against the defendants.

Ushaben v. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir

The plaintiffs-appellants sued the defendants-respondents for a permanent injunction to restrain them from exhibiting the film "Jai Santoshi Maa." The plaintiffs argued that the exhibition of the film constituted a nuisance because it hurt their religious feelings by portraying the Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi, and Parvati as jealous and ridiculed figures.

The court held that hurting religious feelings was not an actionable wrong. Additionally, the plaintiffs had the option not to watch the movie again. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, and therefore, no nuisance was established.

Key Points:

• Hurt to religious feelings is not considered an actionable wrong in law.
• Plaintiffs have the choice not to engage with the content that offends them.
• The balance of convenience plays a crucial role in determining nuisance cases.
• What may be a nuisance to one person due to their sensitivities may not be considered a nuisance in general.

Ushaben v. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir reiterates the principle that not all acts causing discomfort or offense rise to the level of legal action, especially when the discomfort is rooted in individual sensitivities.

Introduction to Nuisance in Law

Nuisance in law refers to an act that significantly interferes with an individual’s use and enjoyment of their property. The concept emphasizes the balance between private rights and public interests, determining when an action becomes unreasonable and actionable in a legal context.

What Constitutes Nuisance?

Nuisance is typically characterized by a continuing wrong, such as persistent noise, smell, or vibration. In contrast, isolated incidents, like a one-time event, do not qualify as nuisance. For example, in Stone v. Bolton, a plaintiff standing on a highway was injured by a cricket ball hit from the defendant's ground. The court ruled against the plaintiff, establishing that a single act of hitting a cricket ball onto the road does not constitute a nuisance.

Malice in Nuisance Cases

When a defendant's actions, driven by malice or ill intent, cause unreasonable interference, it becomes actionable. While individuals have the right to use their property reasonably, if such use results in significant discomfort to others, it may lead to a valid nuisance claim.

For instance, in the case of Robinson v. Kilvert, the plaintiff stored brown paper in a building, and the heat generated by the defendant's business below caused damage to the paper. The loss occurred due to the plaintiff's particularly delicate trade, as brown paper in general would not have been affected by the defendant's activities. The court ruled that the defendant was not liable for nuisance in this scenario.

Understanding Nuisance through Examples:

To grasp the concept of nuisance more effectively, let's delve into the details of the cases mentioned:

• Gur Prashad: In this case, Gur Prasad and others took legal action against Radhey Shyam and others to prevent them from establishing a flour mill on their property. The plaintiffs argued that the noise generated by the mill would disrupt their peace and adversely affect their health. The court determined that the noise from the mill significantly contributed to the already noisy environment, causing discomfort to the plaintiffs. Since this interference was deemed unreasonable, it was classified as a nuisance, leading to the plaintiffs being granted an injunction against the defendants.
• Ushaben v. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir: In this case, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a lawsuit against the defendants-respondents seeking a permanent injunction to stop them from showing the film "Jai Santoshi Maa." The plaintiffs contended that the exhibition of the film was a nuisance because it hurt their religious sentiments by portraying the Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi, and Parvati as jealous and ridiculed figures. However, the court ruled that hurt to religious feelings was not an actionable wrong. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had the option not to watch the movie again. The court determined that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants, and thus, no nuisance was established.

Interference with the use and enjoyment of land

Interference with the use and enjoyment of land can take two forms:

A. Injury to Property

Injury to property refers to unauthorized interference with the use of someone else's property, causing damage through tangible or intangible objects. Examples include:

• Overhanging branches of a tree.
• Escaping roots of a tree.
• Escape of water, gas, smoke, fumes, or vibrations onto a neighbor's land.

Nuisance to incorporeal Property

Nuisance can also occur in relation to incorporeal property, particularly regarding the right of support for land and buildings.

• Interference with the right of support: A person has a natural right to have their land supported by neighboring land. Removal of support, whether lateral or from beneath, constitutes a nuisance. This right is available only for land without buildings or structures.
• Right to support by grant or prescription: For buildings, the right of support may be acquired by grant or prescription. In the case of buildings, it is essential to establish such rights through grant. For instance, if someone builds a house at the edge of their land, they do not automatically acquire an easement of support from their neighbor's land.

Partridge v. Scott

In the case of Partridge v. Scott, it was emphasized that rights of support must have their origin in grant. A person does not gain the right to load their soil in a way that requires support from their neighbor unless there is a grant allowing such support.

Interference with Right to Light and Air

England

• Right to Light is not considered a natural right in England and can be acquired through grant or prescription.
• Once acquired, substantial interference with this right is deemed an actionable nuisance. It is insufficient to merely demonstrate that the plaintiff's building receives less light than before.
• In the case of Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores, Ltd., the court ruled that the defendant was not liable for diminishing the light into a ground floor room used as an office, where electric light was always needed. The court emphasized that a substantial privation of light was necessary for an illegal obstruction.

India

• In India, the right to light and air can also be acquired through an easement.
• Similar provisions regarding the mode and period of enjoyment required to acquire this prescriptive right are outlined in Sec. 25, Limitation Act, 1963 and Sec 15, Indian Easements Act, 1882.

Injury to Comfort or Health

• Substantial interference with comfort and convenience in using premises is actionable as a nuisance.
• A trivial or fanciful inconvenience is insufficient; the law does not consider very trifling matters (De minimis non curat lex).
• There must be a serious inconvenience and interference with the comfort of occupants according to the standards of reasonable people.
• The standard of comfort varies over time and between places. The test of nuisance is not the individual plaintiff's discomfort but how an average person in the same area would perceive it.
• Over-sensitivity of the plaintiff is not a valid measure of nuisance.
• Examples of nuisance include:
  • Disturbance to neighbors at night by noise from horses in a converted stable.
  • Attracting a large and noisy crowd outside a club open until 3 a.m. with entertainments like music and fireworks for profit.

Smoke, Noise, and Offensive Vapour in Nuisance Cases

Even if smoke, noise, and offensive vapour do not harm health, they can still be considered a nuisance.

Damage in Nuisance Cases

• In cases of nuisance, unlike trespass which doesn't require proof of damage, actual damage must be demonstrated. For public nuisance, the plaintiff must prove special damage to bring a tort action.
• In private nuisance, damage is essential, but the law often presumes it. For example, in Fay v. Prentice, the projection of a cornice over the plaintiff's garden was presumed to cause damage without needing proof.

Nuisance on Highways

• Creating dangers or obstructing a highway, even partially, can be considered a nuisance. The obstruction must be unreasonable, such as causing queues without completely blocking the passage.
• In Barber v. Penley, the defendant's theatre caused queues that made access to the plaintiff's boarding house difficult, and the court ruled it as a nuisance.

Projections on Highways

• Projections like overhanging branches from trees or buildings along a highway do not constitute nuisance unless they cause damage.
• In Noble v. Harrison, a tree branch overhanging the highway fell and damaged the plaintiff's vehicle. The court ruled there was no liability for nuisance because the overhanging branch itself did not cause nuisance, and the defendant was not aware of the risk.