Meaning Definition and Explanation of Nuisance

Nuisance in tort law means unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. It involves acts interfering with comfort health or safety. The interference may be through noise vibrations heat smoke smell fumes water gas electricity excavation or disease-producing germs. Nuisance differs from trespass in that trespass involves direct physical interference with possession of land while nuisance involves consequential interference with use or enjoyment.

Types of Nuisance

There are two main types of nuisance:

1. Public Nuisance: This is interference with the right of the public in general and is punishable as a criminal offence. Examples include obstructing a public way. No individual can bring a civil action unless they suffer some special or particular damage different from what is inflicted on the public as a whole.
2. Private Nuisance: This is a civil wrong involving interference with an individual’s use or enjoyment of land. It requires proving:
   • Unreasonable interference
   • Interference with use or enjoyment of land
   • Damage

Essentials of Private Nuisance

1. Unreasonable Interference: The interference must be unreasonable not just any minor disturbance. What is unreasonable varies based on locality. As stated in Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) “what would be a nuisance in Belgrade Square would not necessarily be so in Bremondsey.“
2. Interference with Use or Enjoyment of Land: This can involve:
   1. Injury to the property itself
   2. Injury to comfort or health of occupants
3. Damage: Unlike trespass actual damage must be proved in nuisance though it is often presumed by law.

Unreasonable Interference

Not every interference constitutes nuisance. The interference must be unreasonable. As stated in Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad (1978) substantial addition to noise in a noisy locality seriously interfering with physical comfort amounts to nuisance. Factors considered include:

• Nature of locality
• Sensitivity of plaintiff
• Public good (not a defence)
• Reasonable care taken (generally not a defence)

In Ushaben v. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir (1978) it was held that hurt to religious feelings by exhibiting a film was not actionable nuisance as plaintiffs were free not to watch it.

Interference with Use or Enjoyment of Land

This can occur in two ways:

1. Injury to Property: Unauthorized interference causing damage to property through tangible or intangible objects. This was applied in the case of Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) where fumes damaged trees and shrubs.
2. Injury to Comfort/Health: Substantial interference with comfort and convenience in using premises. Minor inconvenience is not enough. The standard is based on notions of reasonable people as stated in Bland v. Yates (1914).

Nuisance to Incorporeal Property

This includes:

1. Interference with Right of Support: There is a natural right of support for land but not buildings unless acquired by grant or prescription. In Stroyan v. Knowles (1861) damage to a factory due to withdrawal of support to land was actionable.
2. Interference with Right to Light and Air: In England these are not natural rights but can be acquired by grant or prescription. In India they can be acquired as easements under Section 15 Indian Easements Act and Section 25 Limitation Act.

Damage in Nuisance

Unlike trespass actual damage must be proved in nuisance though it is often presumed by law. In Fay v. Prentice (1854) projecting cornice raised presumption of rainwater damage to garden.

Nuisance on Highways

Obstructing a highway or creating dangers on or near it constitutes nuisance. Examples include:

• Forming queues blocking access (Barber v. Penley 1893)
• Leaving vehicles without proper lights (Ware v. Garston Haulage Co. Ltd. 1944)
• Broken windows near highway (Leanse v. Egerton 1943)
• Excavations projections or dangerous substances on road

Defences to Nuisance

Effectual Defences:

1. Prescriptive Right: Right to commit nuisance may be acquired by 20 years peaceful open enjoyment as stated in Sturges v. Bridgman (1879).
2. Statutory Authority: Acts authorized by statute are not liable for inevitable nuisance as held in Hammersmith Railway Co. v. Brand (1869).

Ineffectual Defences:

1. Acts of Others: Defendant cannot claim his act alone did not cause nuisance.
2. Public Good: Benefit to public is no defence as held in Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co. (1895).
3. Reasonable Care: Taking reasonable precautions is generally no defence as per Rapier v. London Tramways Co. (1893).
4. Plaintiff Coming to Nuisance: No defence that plaintiff moved to place of existing nuisance as per Bliss v. Hall (1838).

Legal Provisions

The Indian Easements Act 1882 contains relevant provisions:

• Section 15 – Prescriptive rights for light and air
• Section 25 – Period for acquiring easement rights
• Section 33 – Right to sue for disturbance of easement
• The Limitation Act 1963 Section 25 also deals with prescriptive rights for light and air.

Key Case Laws

1. Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) – Fumes damaging trees constituted nuisance despite industrial locality.
2. Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) – Prescriptive right to commit nuisance runs from when act becomes actionable nuisance.
3. Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emmett (1936) – Malicious acts on own land causing damage to neighbor’s business is nuisance.
4. Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad (1978) – Substantial noise increase in noisy locality interfering with comfort is nuisance.
5. Ushaben v. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra Mandir (1978) – Hurt religious feelings from film not nuisance as plaintiffs could avoid watching.

Legal Maxims and Principles

1. De minimis non curat lex – Law does not concern itself with trifles.
2. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas – Use your property so as not to injure others’ property.
3. Volenti non fit injuria – No injury is done to a willing person (not applicable to nuisance cases).

Doctrines

1. Coming to the nuisance doctrine – Not accepted as defence that plaintiff moved to existing nuisance.
2. Balancing of interests doctrine – Courts balance rights of both parties in determining reasonableness.