Defences to Nuisance | Law of Torts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Defences in Nuisance Cases

Effectual Defences

• Prescriptive Right to Commit Nuisance: A person can acquire the right to engage in an activity that would normally be considered a nuisance through prescription. If someone has been carrying out an activity on another person's land for 20 years or more, they gain a legal right to continue doing so in the future.
• This concept is supported by Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act and Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to these laws, a right to commit a private nuisance can be established as an easement if it has been enjoyed peacefully, openly, and as of right, without interruption, for a period of 20 years.
• Once this 20-year period elapses, the nuisance is considered legal from the beginning, as if it had been authorized by a grant from the owner of the servient land from the start. This principle was illustrated in the case of Sturges v. Bridgman.
• Statutory Authority: When an act is carried out under the authority of a statute, it serves as a complete defense in nuisance cases. If the nuisance is an inevitable consequence of what has been authorized by law, there is no liability under tort law.
• For instance, a railway company authorized to operate trains on a track is not liable if sparks from the engine accidentally set fire to adjacent property, even if due care was taken. This principle was established in cases like Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail Co., and Dunney v. North Western Gas Board.
• However, without such statutory authority, the railway company could be held liable even in the absence of negligence. Cases like Jones v. Festing Rail Co. and Hammersmith Ry. Co. v. Brand illustrate situations where the value of adjoining property could be affected by noise, vibrations, and smoke from train operations.
• Additionally, if there is negligence in the operation of trains, the railway company can be held liable even if operating under statutory authority.

Smith v. L. and S.S. Ry. Co.

In the case of Smith v. L. and S.S. Ry. Co., Lord Halsbury, as referenced in the case of London Brighton and South Coast Rail Co. v. Turman, stated that railway companies authorized by Parliament to carry passengers, goods, or cattle are protected when using their legal functions, even if it creates a nuisance at common law.

Ineffectual Defences

1. Nuisance Due to Acts of Others

• When two or more individuals act independently and their actions collectively cause a nuisance, each can be held liable even if their individual actions would not constitute a nuisance.
• A lawsuit can be filed against any of them, and it is not a valid defense to argue that the defendant's actions alone would not be a nuisance.

2. Public Good

• It is not a valid defense to claim that what constitutes a nuisance for a specific plaintiff is beneficial to the public as a whole.
• If this were the case, public utility projects could never be held accountable for infringing on individual rights.
• In the cases of Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co. and Thorpe v. Burmfit, during the construction of an electric power station by the defendants, significant vibrations caused damage to the plaintiff's property.
• The defendants argued that the construction was necessary for the public benefit of electric lighting in London.
• However, the court rejected this defense and granted an injunction to the plaintiff.

3. Reasonable Care

• Taking reasonable care to prevent nuisance is usually not a valid defense.
• In the case of Rapier v. London Tramways Co., the defendants caused a significant nuisance due to the smell from their stables designed for 200 horses used to pull trams.
• The defense of having taken maximum care to prevent the nuisance was unsuccessful.

Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

The law of torts aims to achieve distributive justice, ensuring that the person responsible for causing injury to the plaintiff bears the burden of compensation. Here are the key principles:

• If the defendant is at fault, they must compensate the plaintiff and bear the burden.
• If the plaintiff is at fault, they bear the burden.
• If both parties are at fault, they share the burden.
• If neither is at fault, the plaintiff bears the loss.

Moreover, the defendant is not held liable for any loss caused to the plaintiff unless it results from a breach of legal duty towards the plaintiff. This is illustrated by the concepts of damnum sine injuria and injuria sine damno.

1. Fault Liability

Fault liability involves duties not to injure intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. When a person is engaged in a duty of normal risk, they are expected not to cause injury through intentional, reckless, or negligent actions.

2. No Fault Liability

No fault liability pertains to duties not to injure simpliciter, meaning the duty not to cause injury regardless of fault. This principle applies in situations where the defendant is engaged in activities that pose a risk of harm, regardless of the level of care taken.

In essence, the law of torts seeks to ensure that those responsible for causing harm bear the consequences, whether through fault or strict liability.

Types of Liability in Torts

When someone gets injured or suffers a loss because of someone else's actions, the law looks at different types of liability to decide who is responsible. Here are the main types:

1. Fault Liability

This type of liability comes into play when someone is held responsible for causing harm due to their intentional, reckless, or negligent actions. Let's break this down:

• Intentional Actions: If someone deliberately causes harm to another person, they are liable for that harm. For example, if someone punches another person in a fight, the attacker is responsible for the injury caused.
• Reckless Actions: Recklessness involves taking actions that are likely to cause harm, even if there is no intention to do so. For instance, if a driver speeds through a crowded street without regard for the safety of pedestrians, they could be held liable for any accidents that occur.
• Negligent Actions: Negligence refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person. For instance, if a store owner fails to clean up a spill and a customer slips and gets injured, the owner may be liable for negligence.

2. No Fault Liability

No fault liability involves situations where the law imposes responsibility for causing injury, regardless of the level of care or intention involved. This principle applies in cases where certain activities are considered inherently risky, and the law holds individuals accountable for the potential harm their actions may cause.

• Examples of No Fault Liability:
  • Strict Liability in Product Liability Cases: Manufacturers can be held liable for defective products that cause harm, regardless of whether they were negligent in the manufacturing process. For instance, if a faulty electrical appliance causes a fire and injures someone, the manufacturer may be held responsible.
  • Injuries to Passengers in Public Transportation: Transport providers may be liable for injuries to passengers due to accidents, regardless of fault. For example, if a bus driver has a sudden medical emergency and the bus crashes, the company may be liable for the injuries sustained by passengers.
  • Workers' Compensation: Employers are generally liable for work-related injuries to employees, regardless of fault. For instance, if a factory worker injures themselves on the job due to an accident, the employer may be required to provide compensation regardless of how the injury occurred.

In summary, the law of torts aims to hold individuals accountable for causing harm, whether through fault-based liability or strict liability. Fault liability focuses on intentional, reckless, or negligent actions, while no fault liability applies to situations where harm is caused regardless of fault, such as in product liability cases, public transportation accidents, and workers' compensation claims.