A legal action to redress harm arising from the use of one's property.

The two types of nuisance are private nuisance and public nuisance. A private nuisance is a civil wrong; it is the unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use of one's property in a manner that substantially interferes with the enjoyment or use of another individual's property, without an actual Trespass or physical invasion to the land. A public nuisance is a criminal wrong; it is an act or omission that obstructs, damages, or inconveniences the rights of the community. Public Nuisance The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes that threaten the health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a community. Violators may be punished by a criminal sentence, a fine, or both. A defendant may also be required to remove a nuisance or to pay the costs of removal. or e!ample, a manufacturer who has polluted a stream might be fined and might also be ordered to pay the cost of cleanup. "ublic nuisances may interfere with public health, such as in the #eeping of diseased animals or a malarial pond. "ublic safety nuisances include shooting firewor#s in the streets, storing e!plosives, practicing medicine without a license, or harboring a vicious dog. $ouses of prostitution, illegal liquor establishments, %aming houses, and unlicensed pri&efights are e!amples of nuisances that interfere with public morals. 'bstructing a highway or creating a condition to ma#e travel unsafe or highly disagreeable are e!amples of nuisances threatening the public convenience. A public nuisance interferes with the public as a class, not merely one person or a group of citi&ens. (o civil remedy e!ists for a private citi&en harmed by a public nuisance, even if his or her harm was greater than the harm suffered by others; a criminal prosecution is the e!clusive remedy. $owever, if the individual suffers harm that is different from that suffered by the general public, the individual may maintain a T')T A*T+'(for damages. or e!ample, if dynamiting has thrown a large boulder onto a public highway, those who use the highway cannot maintain a nuisance action for the inconvenience. $owever, a motorist who is injured from colliding with the boulder may bring a tort action for personal injuries. ,ome nuisances can be both public and private in certain circumstances where the public nuisance substantially interferes with the use of an individual's adjoining land. or e!ample, "ollution of a river might constitute both a public and a private nuisance. This is #nown as a mi!ed nuisance. Private Nuisance A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recogni&es that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation. -!amples of private nuisances abound. (uisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. -!amples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, no!ious gases, smo#e, dust, loud noises, e!cessive light, or high temperatures. .oreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who #eeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.

An attractive nuisance is a danger li#ely to lure children onto a person's land. or e!ample, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to ta#e reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children. Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to e!clusive possession of land. +f a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog bar#s all night #eeping the neighbor awa#e, she may be liable for nuisance. Legal Responsibility A private nuisance is a tort, that is, a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a court will e!amine three factors/ the defendant's fault, whether there has been a substantial interference with the plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. Fault ault means that the defendant intentionally, negligently, or rec#lessly interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land or that the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actual harm or substantial ris# of future harm to the plaintiff's interest. or e!ample, a defendant who continues to spray chemicals into the air after learning that they are blowing onto the plaintiff's land is deemed to be intending that result. 0here it is alleged that a defendant has violated a statute, proving the elements of the statute will establish fault. Substantial Interference The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. 1etermining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. .ore challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, ma#e a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless. Reasonableness of Defendant's Conduct +f the interference with the plaintiff's interest is substantial, a determination must then be made that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear it or to bear it without compensation. This is a 2alancing process weighing the respective interests of both parties. The law recogni&es that the activities of others must be accommodated to a certain e!tent, particularly in matters of industry, commerce, or trade. The nature and gravity of the harm is balanced against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness of the conduct. The following are factors to be considered/

-!tent and duration of the disturbance; (ature of the harm; ,ocial value of the plaintiff's use of his or her property or other interest; 2urden to the plaintiff in preventing the harm; Value of the defendant's conduct, in general and to the particular community; .otivation of the defendant; easibility of the defendant's mitigating or preventing the harm;

3ocality and suitability of the uses of the land by both parties.

4oning boards use these factors to enact restrictions of property uses in specific locations. +n this way, &oning laws wor# to prohibit public nuisances and to maintain the quality of a neighborhood.

Defenses +n an attempt to escape liability, a defendant may argue that legislation 5such as &oning laws or licenses6 authori&es a particular activity. 3egislative authority will not e!cuse a defendant from liability if the conduct is unreasonable. A defendant may not escape liability by arguing that others are also contributing to the harm; damages will be apportioned according to a defendant's share of the blame. .oreover, a defendant is liable even where his or her actions without the actions of others would not have constituted a nuisance. 1efendants sometimes argue that a plaintiff 7came to a nuisance7 by moving onto land ne!t to an already operating source of interference. A new owner is entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of his or her land the same as anyone else, but the argument may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. +t may also have an impact in determining damages because the purchase price may have reflected the e!istence of the nuisance. Remedies )edress for nuisance is commonly monetary damages. An +njunction or abatement may also be proper under certain circumstances. An injunction orders a defendant to stop, remove, restrain, or restrict a nuisance or abandon plans for a threatened nuisance. +n public nuisance cases, a fine or sentence may be imposed, in addition to abatement or injunctive relief. +njunction is a drastic remedy, used only when damage or the threat of damage is irreparable and not satisfactorily compensable only by monetary damages. The court e!amines the economic hardships to the parties and the interest of the public in allowing the continuation of the enterprise. A ,elf8$elp remedy, abatement by the plaintiff, is available under limited circumstances. This privilege must be e!ercised within a reasonable time after learning of the nuisance and usually requires notice to the defendant and the defendant's failure to act. )easonable force may be used to employ the abatement, and a plaintiff may be liable for unreasonable or unnecessary damages. or e!ample, dead tree limbs e!tending dangerously over a neighbor's house may be removed by the neighbor in danger, after notifying the offending landowner of the nuisance. +n cases where an immediate danger to health, property, or life e!ists, no notification is necessary.

Nuisance 5also spelled nocence, through r. noisance, nuisance, from 3at. nocere, 7to hurt76 is a common law tort. +t means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public 5also 7common76 or private. A public nuisance was defined by -nglish scholar ,ir 9. . ,tephen as, 7an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the e!ercise of rights common to all $er .ajesty's subjects7. :;< Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. (uisance is one of the oldest causes of action #nown to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going bac# almost to the beginning of recorded case law. (uisance signifies that the 7right of quiet enjoyment7 is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed. 1efinition =nder the common law, persons in possession of real property 5land owners, lease holders etc.6 are entitled to the quiet en oyment of their lands. $owever this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. +f a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other ha&ard that e!tends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may ma#e a claim in nuisance. 3egally, the term nuisance is traditionally used in three ways/ ;. to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others 5e.g., indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smo#ing chimney6 >. to describe the harm caused by the before8mentioned activity or condition 5e.g., loud noises or objectionable odors6 ?. to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two. :>< $owever, the 7interference7 was not the result of a neighbor stealing land or trespassing on the land. +nstead, it arose from activities ta#ing place on another person's land that affected the enjoyment of that land.:?<

The law of nuisance was created to stop such bothersome activities or conduct when they unreasonably interfered either with the rights of other private landowners 5i.e., private nuisance6 or with the rights of the general public 5i.e., public nuisance6 A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the public's right to property. +t includes conduct that interferes with public health, safety, peace or convenience. The unreasonableness may be evidenced by statute, or by the nature of the act, including how long, and how bad, the effects of the activity may be. :@< A private nuisance is simply a violation of one's use of quiet enjoyment of land. +t doesn't include trespass.:A< To be a nuisance, the level of interference must rise above the merely aesthetic. or e!ample/ if your neighbour paints their house purple, it may offend you; however, it doesn't rise to the level of nuisance. +n most cases, normal uses of a property that can constitute quiet enjoyment cannot be restrained in nuisance either. or e!ample, the sound of a crying baby may be annoying, but it is an e!pected part of quiet enjoyment of property and does not constitute a nuisance. Any affected property owner has standing to sue for a private nuisance. +f a nuisance is widespread enough, but yet has a public purpose, it is often treated at law as a public nuisance. 'wners of interests in real property 5whether owners, lessors, or holders of an easement or other interest6 have standing only to bring private nuisance suits. $istory and legal development of nuisance:edit< +n the late ;Bth and early >Cth centuries, the law of nuisance became difficult to administer, as competing property uses often posed a nuisance to each other, and the cost of litigation to settle the issue grew prohibitive. As such, most jurisdictions now have a system of land use planning 5e.g.&oning6 that describes what activities are acceptable in a given location. 4oning generally overrules nuisance. or e!ample/ if a factory is operating in an industrial &one, neighbours in the neighbouring residential &one can't ma#e a claim in nuisance. 9urisdictions without &oning laws essentially leave land use to be determined by the laws concerning nuisance. ,imilarly, modern environmental laws are an adaptation of the doctrine of nuisance to modern comple! societies, in that a person's use of his property may harmfully affect another's property, or person, far from the nuisance activity, and from causes not easily integrated into historic understandings of nuisance law. )emedies:edit< =nder the common law, the only remedy for a nuisance was the payment of damages. $owever, with the development of the courts of equity, the remedy of an injunction became available to prevent a defendant from repeating the activity that caused the nuisance, and specifying punishment forcontempt if the defendant is in breach of such an injunction. The law and economics movement has been involved in analy&ing the most efficient choice of remedies given the circumstances of the nuisance. +n Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. a cement plant interfered with a number of neighbors, yet the cost of complying with a full injunction would have been far more than a fair value of the cost to the plaintiffs of continuation. The (ew Dor# court allowed the cement plant owner to 'purchase' the injunction for a specified amountEthe permanent damages. +n theory, the permanent

damage amount should be the net present value of all future damages suffered by the plaintiff.