Introduction
A person has a complete right to reasonably enjoy and use his/her property in the way he/she wants but if somebody cause unlawful disturbance to the enjoyment and use of that right, it gives rise to the tort of nuisance. The word nuisance has been derived from the French word “nuire” which means “to cause harm, or to hurt, or to annoy”. Similarly in Latin, the word nuisance has been taken from the word “nocere” means “to cause harm”.
One party has a right of enjoyment and use of his land in whatever way he wants and at the same time the other party has a duty not to interfere with that right. So, tort of nuisance is not about to make defendant liable but to create a balance between the interests of both the parties so that they both can enjoy their right over the land or property of their own.
In this blog, our focus will be on discussing nuisance as a tort, understanding it in detail through definitions given by prominent jurists and writers, and examining case laws. Later, we will discuss the types of nuisances recognized in tort law, aiming to provide a clear picture of the Tort of Nuisance by the end.
Meaning of Nuisance
According to Black’s Law Dictionary -
Nuisance is a condition, activity, or situation (such as loud noise or foul odor) that interferes with the use or enjoyment of property; esp.., a non-transitory condition or persistent activity that either injures the physical condition of adjacent land or interferes with its use or with the enjoyment of easements on the land or public of public highways. Liability might or might not arise from the condition or situation- formerly also termed annoyance.
According to the Dictionary of Law-
“TORT OR DELICT of wrongful interference in another’s use of defendant’s land, usually by the plaintiff’s use of his land. It also protects the interests of the individual, even temporarily, in the neighborhood of the property in his life and health.”
According to Sir John Salmond-
“Nuisance consists in causing or allowing to cause without lawful justification, the escape of any deleterious thing from one’s land or from anywhere into land in possession of the plaintiff, such as water, smoke, gas, heat, electricity, etc.”
According to the definition of Stephen-
“Nuisance is anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the tenements of another, or of the lands, one which doesn’t amount to trespass.”
According to the definition given by Dr Winfield-
“Nuisance is an unlawful interference with person’s use of enjoyment of land or some right over it or in connection with it.”
Essential of Tort of Nuisance.
To clarify as to what constitute nuisance or not, it is crucial to understand the essentials of the tort of nuisance. Those essentials are-
Unreasonable Interference
Interference may result in harm to the plaintiff's property or may make the plaintiff personally uncomfortable while they are using it for their own benefit. Not every interruption is a nuisance. The interference must be unjustified for it to be considered a nuisance. For the benefit of society's members enjoying their own rights, each person must endure certain noise, vibrations, smells, etc.
If, I live next to a busy road, I am not allowed to sue for the inconvenience that results from the traffic on that particular route. I also cannot file a lawsuit against my neighbor if his radio listening disturbs my ability to study. No action may be taken if the interference is not unreasonable. The right of the occupier to use his property however he pleases and the neighbor's right to privacy must coexist in harmony.
In Radhey Shyam v Gur Prasad [1], Radhey Shyam and others were sued by Gur Prasad and another party for a permanent injunction prohibiting them from setting up and operating a flour mill on their property. The plaintiffs, residing on the first floor of the same building, claimed the mill's rattling noise would disrupt their tranquility and negatively impact their health. It was determined that the operation of the contested machines significantly increased noise in the neighborhood, adversely affecting the plaintiffs' comfort and constituting a nuisance, making the plaintiffs eligible for an injunction against the defendants.
In Ushaben v Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir [2], the plaintiffs-appellants filed a lawsuit to prevent the defendants-respondents from showing the movie "Jai Santoshi Maa," claiming it was objectionable because it depicted the Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi, and Parvati as jealous, which offended their religious sensibilities. It was argued that offenses against religious sentiments did not constitute a crime, and the plaintiffs had the freedom to avoid watching the film. The court determined there was no nuisance since the defendants' interests outweighed the public interest.
In Sturges v Bridgman [3], a confectioner used commercial pestles and mortars for over 20 years without issue until the plaintiff, a doctor, added a consulting room to the back of his building next to the confectioner's location. The doctor then claimed the noise and vibrations were a nuisance. The court ruled in favor of the doctor, holding that what might be a nuisance in Belgrave Square might not necessarily be so in Bermondsey, considering the area's preponderance of doctor's offices.
Interference with the use or Enjoyment of Land
Interference can cause injury to both property and health or comfort-
- Injury to Property
An unjustified and unreasonable interference with another person's property. Both material and intangible things can interfere. It can be allowing tree branches to land on someone else's porch. Reaching of intolerable smoke, fire, or gas is a sort of nuisance.
In this case St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping [4], the plaintiff's trees and branches were harmed by the defendant's company's emissions. The court decided the defendants were responsible since such damage resulted in property damage. The court dismissed the defendant's argument that this area was only intended for these kinds of activities.
In order to establish a nuisance, the plaintiff must be the owner of the property and have the legal right to receive the benefit. He will not be entitled to damages if that benefit is taken away if he has no legal right to enjoy it. The fact that the plaintiff has been getting this benefit for a long time is unimportant.
- Injury to comfort or health
A relatively minor annoyance is insufficient to qualify as a nuisance; there must be an unacceptable interference with a person's right to privacy, causing considerable discomfort to the plaintiff. The guiding principle is "de minimis non curat lex," meaning the law does not concern itself with trivial matters.
The definition of comfort can vary over time and from person to person. It is subjective—what may not bother one person might be a nuisance to another. The test is based on what a typical person would think of the situation.
For example, playing music during the day is generally reasonable and not considered a nuisance. However, playing the same music late at night and disturbing a neighbour's sleep is considered a nuisance. The case of Radhey Shyam v Gur Prasad illustrates this principle.
Damages
In the case of trespass, it is an actionable per se, but in case of nuisance actual harm or damage must be proved. When there is a public nuisance, special damages must be proved for the action in civil wrong. Even though damage must be present in a private nuisance lawsuit, the court frequently assumes damage.
In Fay v Prentice [5], the defendant's house's cornice extended over the plaintiff's garden. It was decided that no proof was necessary because the mere presence of the cornice establishes a presumption that rainwater will enter the garden and cause damage. The defendant was found to be responsible in this case of private nuisance.
Kinds of Nuisance
Nuisance can be divided into two heads, first is Public Nuisance and the other is Private Nuisance, however, it is quite feasible for the same behavior to occur in both settings.
Public Nuisance
While a private nuisance is a tort, a public nuisance is a crime because it affects the rights, comfort, and convenience of a large number of people in a particular area. Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code defines public nuisance.[6] For example, digging a trench on public roads or in public places causes discomfort and inconvenience to the public in general.[7] In cases of public nuisance, although it causes inconvenience to the public at large, not everyone can bring a civil action. This is to avoid an unnecessary burden on the courts. Therefore, public nuisance is punishable under criminal law.
However, if a particular person suffers specific and special damage different from what the public at large suffers, a civil action can be brought against the defendant. For instance, if a trench causes inconvenience to the public but also severely injures a specific person who falls into it, the defendant can be sued for civil wrongs by that particular person, provided the special damage is proved.
In Dr. Ram Raj Singh v Babulal [8], the defendant has made brick grinding machine adjacent to the premise of the plaintiff, who was practicing medical there. Dust was generated by the brick grinding machine which entered into the chamber of the plaintiff where he used to treat his patients. This caused inconvenience physically to him and the patient that came to his chamber. Dust caused by machine was clearly visible on their clothes. In this case, it was held by the court that the special damage was caused, and it is proved and issued a permanent injunction against the defendant and restrain him from continuing him to operate that brick grinding machine.
In Tale & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council [9], A sugar refinery run by Tate & Lyle was situated along the river. They established a jetty from which barges would unload raw sugar and take away processed sugar. To pass through the shallow seas, the sugar would first be transported from bigger boats to smaller barges. Tate & Lyle wanted to expand the area; thus they wanted to build a new dock and dredge the water to make room for the bigger ships. The GLC was building new ferry ports at the same time. Because of how the ferry terminals were built, the waterways were sluggish. Tate & Lyles' bigger vessels were able to use the channels for a brief period of time before losing access to them. The cost of further dredging to make the waterway and jetties navigable for the vessels was £540,000. Tate & Lyle filed a case for negligence and nuisance to recover the cost of the additional dredging.
In this case, it was held by the court that there can be no action for the private nuisance as the jetty was not affected. The plaintiffs were able to file a public nuisance lawsuit since the public right of navigation for river users had been impeded.
Private Nuisance
A private nuisance is a civil wrong that interferes with an individual’s or a specific group’s enjoyment of a private right, which is not shared by the general public. It involves significant and unjustified interference with a person’s use and enjoyment of their land. Examples include disrupting the land's natural state, disturbing residents' peace of mind, or posing a risk of future harm. Unlike public nuisance, private nuisance liability is solely tortious, not criminal.
Private nuisance occurs when someone is harmed regarding a right they are entitled to due to their ownership or interest in the land. It encompasses any harm to an owner or occupier using the property they possess. The tort of private nuisance protects a person’s right to use and enjoy their property without significant interference. Common nuisances include vibration, soil or stream pollution, loud noises, intense light, smoke, and unpleasant odours.
Private nuisance lawsuits typically arise between neighbours when one property owner is harmed by another's actions. The law recognizes that property owners or lawful occupiers have the right to the undamaged condition of their property and reasonable comfort and convenience while using it. Examples of private nuisances include:
- Vibration or blasting that damages a house
- Destruction of crops
- Elevation of the water table
- Contamination of soil, streams, or underground water sources
- Foul smells, toxic gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or hot temperatures
Even the threat of injury can cause a nuisance, such as a neighbour keeping a dangerous dog, which disturbs mental peace. Attractive nuisances, like an unfenced pool, require the property owner to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable injuries to children.
Trespass and nuisance are distinct but sometimes overlap. Trespass involves infringement of rights like sole possession of land, while nuisance involves disturbance of use and enjoyment. For instance, placing a tree on a neighbour’s property constitutes trespass, while a barking dog causing disturbance constitutes a nuisance.
Once public nuisance is established and the defendant is shown to have contributed to it, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to defend or exonerate themselves. This contrasts with negligence cases, where the plaintiff bears the legal responsibility. Similarly, in private nuisance cases, once the claimant proves the nuisance originated from the defendant's property, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate a defence, such as absence of negligence or taking all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the nuisance.
Conclusion
In the modern environment, we tolerate many annoyances such as noise, dust, pollution, stench, smoke, and effluent leakage. We encounter and often overlook these daily. Nuisance can be caused by neighbors, the community, the state, or various government agencies. The concept of nuisance pertains to regular activities, and except for Public Nuisance, laws against nuisance are largely uncodified. Through numerous rulings and contributions from renowned jurists, nuisance as a tort has become comprehensive.
The tort of nuisance aims to balance neighborhood interests so that everyone can enjoy and use their land as they wish without disputes. Courts strive to balance the interests of both parties. It is sometimes difficult to determine what constitutes a nuisance because individuals and places vary. What may be a nuisance in one place might not be in another, and what causes nuisance to one person might not affect another. It also depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
[1] Radhey Shiam v Gur Prasad Serma, 1977 SCC OnLine All 247.
[2] Ushaben v Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR 1978 Guj. 13.
[3] Sturges v Bridgman, (1979) 11 Ch. D. 852.
[4] St. Helen's Smelting Co. v Tipping, (1865) 11 H.L. Cas 642.
[5] Fay v Prentice, (1854) 1 C.B. 828.
[6] “A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right”.
[7] Dr.Ram Raj Singh v Babulal, AIR 1982 All 285.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Tate & Lyle v Greater London Council, (1983) 2 AC 509.