Tort of Nuisance

– Nuisance is an injury to the right of a person’s possession of his property to undisturbed

enjoyment of it and results from an improper usage by another individual.

Essential elements of Nuisance

1.) Wrongful act
– Any act which is done with the intention to cause the infringement of the legal rights of
another is considered to be a wrongful act.

2.) Damage or loss or annoyance caused to another individual.

– Damage or loss or annoyance must be such which the law should consider as a substantial
material for the claim.

Public Nuisance

– Public nuisance affects the society and the people living in it at large, or some
considerable portion of the society and it affects the rights which the members of the
society might enjoy over the property.
– The acts which seriously affects or interferes with the health, safety or comfort of the
general public is a public nuisance.

Private Nuisance
– Private Nuisance is that kind of nuisance in which a person’s use or enjoyment of his
property is ruined by another.
– It may also injuriously affect the owner of the property by physically injuring his property
or by affecting the enjoyment of the property.
– The remedy for private nuisance is a civil action for damages or an injunction or both.
– The interference must be unreasonable or unlawful
– Such interference has to be with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some rights over the
property, or it should be in connection with the property or physical discomfort.
– There should be seeable damage to the property or with the enjoyment of the property
 ● A nuisance may be in respect of either property or physical discomfort

Tort of Negligence

– Negligence can be explained as the failure of act or the omission to do something due
which was to be taken care of.

Essentials of Negligence
● Duty of Care: The plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care and
made a breach of the same.  The nature of duty for negligence is purely legal and not
moral or religious. ‘Duty‘ can be seen as an obligation to be careful towards others.
● Breach of Duty: When the first condition is established, the second step is to establish
that there was a breach of duty. The defendant is supposed to carry out his duty like a
reasonable man. The deciding test is to see whether the defendant has taken reasonable
care or not.
● Damage: As a result of the breach of duty by the defendant, the plaintiff must suffer some
damage.

Donoghue v Stevenson [case law]

– In this case, the plaintiff had gone to a cafe to have a ginger beer, the bottle of which was
sealed with an opaque cork.
– On emptying the contents of the bottle, a decomposed body of a snail came out, The
plaintiff was taken ill due to the part consumption of the contaminated contents of the
bottle.
– It was held by the court that the manufacturer who manufactures the product for the end
consumer with the assumption that with the lack of reasonable care in his part the
consumer will suffer an injury, such a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the plaintiff.

Strict Liability
– The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher
– the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on
his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes
any damage.
– Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built a
 –
reservoir on his land.
– Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R.
– Subsequently, R filed a suit against F. The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir
at his risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable for
the accident and escape of the material.

Essentials of Strict Liability

. Dangerous Substances
. Escape
. Non natural use (making a reservoir for powering up a mill)

Absolute Liability
– In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v Union of India.
– This is one of the most landmark judgment which relates to the concept of absolute
liability.
– According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is engaged in an inherently
dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to any
accident which occurred during carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous
activity, then the person who is carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable.
– In MC Mehta case, some oleum gas was leaked in a particular area in Delhi and due to the
leakage many people were affected . The Apex Court then evolved the rule of absolute
liability.
– MC Mehta v UOI was also followed by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of
Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure that victims of such accidents get quick relief
through insurance