Nuisance under Law of Torts: Elements, Kinds, Remedies, and Defences | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction to Nuisance under Law of Torts

• The term "Nuisance" is derived from the French word 'Nuire,' meaning to cause irritation or harm. It refers to an unlawful interference with an individual's ability to use or enjoy their land, and this legal entitlement cannot be violated without proper justification. If someone wrongfully disrupts this right, it constitutes a "Nuisance" under the Law of Torts. Generally, individuals are entitled to the complete and reasonable enjoyment of their property, whether tangible, intangible, movable, or immovable.
• According to jurist Salmond, the essence of Nuisance lies in causing or permitting, without lawful justification, the release of any harmful substance from one's land or elsewhere into the land possessed by the plaintiff. This can include elements such as water, fumes, smoke, gas, noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease, germs, or animals.

Essential Elements of Nuisance under Law of Torts

• Wrongful Act by the Defendant
• Damage/Loss/Inconvenience caused to the Plaintiff

In the realm of tort law, the concept of nuisance encompasses certain key components that must be met for an action to be considered legally actionable. These elements are crucial for understanding the basis of a nuisance claim. Let's delve into each of these elements.

Wrongful Act by the Defendant

• One essential aspect of proving nuisance under tort law is demonstrating that the defendant committed a wrongful act. This wrongful act typically involves behavior that interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their property.
• For instance, if a factory releases harmful pollutants into the air, causing a neighboring homeowner to suffer health issues or property damage, this could constitute a wrongful act leading to a potential nuisance claim.

Damage/Loss/Inconvenience caused to the Plaintiff

• Another critical element in establishing nuisance is the presence of actual harm, loss, or inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff as a direct result of the defendant's actions. This harm can take various forms, such as physical damage to property, emotional distress, or disruption of daily activities.
• For example, if a construction company operates loud machinery late into the night, disturbing the peace and quiet of nearby residents and affecting their sleep, the residents may have grounds to claim nuisance due to the inconvenience caused.
• By meeting these essential elements of nuisance under the law of torts, individuals can seek legal recourse for actions that encroach upon their rights and well-being.

Key Case Laws on Nuisance in Law of Torts

• Case of Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir: The plaintiff sued the defendant over the movie "Jai Santoshi Maa," alleging it hurt the religious sentiments of a Hindu community. The court ruled that hurting religious feelings is not a legal wrong, and the plaintiff can choose not to watch the movie again. To claim damages for Nuisance, the interference must be ongoing.
• Case of Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd: The defendant's factory emitted various pollutants harming the plaintiff's health due to their sensitivity. The defendant was held responsible for emitting smoke, oil, and fumes but not for the health hazard.

Kinds of Nuisance under Law of Torts

Private Nuisance

• Private Nuisance affects an individual instead of the general public. It gives the affected person the right to claim against the wrongdoer personally.
• It occurs when the actions of the Defendant impact only the Plaintiff's enjoyment of their land and property, without affecting others.
• The Plaintiff can seek unliquidated damages based on the severity of the harm caused.

Essentials of Private Nuisance

• Unlawful or Unreasonable Interference: This interference results in legal harm to the Plaintiff, either in terms of property damage or physical discomfort.

Case Laws

• In St. Hellen Smelting Co. v. Tipping, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff when fumes from the Defendant's factory harmed the Plaintiff's trees.
• In Dilaware Ltd. v. Westminister City Council, the Defendant was held responsible for damages caused by tree roots to an adjacent building.
• In Dattamal Chiranji Lal v. Lodh Prasad, the defendants were ordered to cease operations of a grinding mill that disturbed the Plaintiff's peace.
• In Palmar v. Loder, the Defendants were restricted from making loud noises and disturbing the Plaintiff's peace.

Public Nuisance

• Public Nuisance refers to actions by a defendant that unreasonably and unlawfully inconvenience and harm a large group of people.
• It occurs when the defendant's actions significantly disrupt the comfort and convenience of a class of individuals.

Examples of Public Nuisance:

• Fully or partially blocking a highway - New Group Newspapers v. SOGAT
• Picketing on a road - Thomas v. National Union of Mineworkers
• Blocking a canal - Rose v. Miles
• Making obscene telephone calls to a large number of women - R v. Johnson (Anthony Thomas)
• Premises near a highway in a dangerous state - Tarry v. Ashton
• Parking coaches on a public highway - Attorney-General v. Gastonia Coaches
• Golf course too close to a public road - Castle v. St Augustine Links

Remedies for Nuisance under Law of Torts

• Damages: When someone experiences inconvenience due to a nuisance, the court may order the person causing the nuisance to pay compensation. This compensation can be in the form of money or other material possessions. The amount varies based on the severity of the inconvenience faced by the affected party.
• Injunction: In cases where monetary compensation is insufficient to address the harm caused by the nuisance, the court can require the person at fault to cease the activity causing the nuisance. This cessation can be temporary or permanent, depending on the circumstances of the case. For instance, if a construction site is causing noise pollution that significantly disturbs the neighbors, the court may issue an injunction to halt the construction until further notice.
• Abatement: This is akin to a swift resolution, where the affected party can personally eliminate the nuisance without involving the legal system. However, this action must be lawful and not infringe upon the rights of others. An example of abatement could be a homeowner trimming overgrown trees on their property that are obstructing a neighbor's view.

Defences against Nuisance under Law of Torts

Prescription

• Under the law, Prescription serves as a defense against Nuisance. This means that if a defendant has been carrying out a certain action without interruption from the plaintiff for a continuous period of 20 years, the plaintiff cannot bring a Nuisance claim.
• In the case of Elliotson v. Feetham, it was established that the defendant could continue a malodorous trade because they had done so without interference from the plaintiff for two decades.
• Conversely, in Mohinimohan v. Kashinath Roy, it was decided that no right to continue religious kirtans on someone else's land could be acquired through tradition.

Statutory Authority

• When an action is empowered by a statute or law in a specific manner, the plaintiff cannot sue the defendant for Nuisance, even if the action causes harm. Statutory Authority can be either Conditional or Absolute.
• In the case of Vaughan v. Taff Rly, the defendant's construction of locomotive lines under statutory authority protected them from legal action by the plaintiff, despite the harm suffered.

De-Minimis Non-Curat Lex

• This defense applies when a plaintiff's sensitivity is deemed excessive, and a reasonable person would not be bothered by the trivial issue. In such cases, a claim for damages against the defendant is not valid.

Exceptions to Defences against Nuisance under Law of Torts

• It is not considered a valid defense for the Defendant to argue that the Plaintiff himself came to the place of Nuisance.
• Claiming that all reasonable care had been taken by the defendant to prevent the act of Nuisance from harming the Plaintiff is also not a valid defense.
• It is not a valid defense to argue that there are others who also commit Nuisance against the Plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant is not the sole wrongdoer.
• Claiming that the act of Nuisance is for the benefit of the Public and only negatively affects the Plaintiff is not a valid defense.

Even though various defenses exist for Defendants in cases of nuisance, these specific exceptions highlight situations where certain arguments cannot be used as a defense against a nuisance claim.

For example, if a factory owner argues that the plaintiff willingly came to the factory knowing about the noise levels, it cannot be used as a defense against a nuisance claim. Similarly, even if a defendant can prove that they took all possible precautions to prevent nuisance, it will not serve as a valid defense against the claim.

Moreover, the presence of other wrongdoers or the argument that the nuisance benefits the public while only affecting the plaintiff adversely are not acceptable defenses in a nuisance case.

Conclusion

• The concept of nuisance in law pertains to the everyday activities of an individual.
• Laws concerning nuisance are largely traditional, with the exception of the criminal aspect of Public Nuisance.
• The legal concept of nuisance as a tort has evolved significantly through numerous court decisions and the contributions of distinguished legal scholars.
• India, being a former British colony, initially relied on English legal precedents to grasp and develop the understanding of this tort.
• Over time, India has adapted and tailored various aspects of the interpretation of nuisance laws to suit its unique geographical, cultural, and economic diversity.
• The primary aim has been to ensure justice for all citizens and uphold the principles of Rule of Law, Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.