I Year B.A./ B.B.A. LL.

B– Semester-I (2023)

1st -Internal Assessment- Law of Torts including MV

Accident and Consumer Protection Laws

ESSAY WRITING

Nuisance: A comparative and critical analysis

NAME: Bhakti Agarwal

DIVISION: C
PRN: 21010126269
COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2023-28

1|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
Nuisance: A comparative and critical analysis

INTRODUCTION
The reverberating noise and emissions from a factory disrupted a heart patient living in the
neighbourhood and polluted his house. Destruction to property caused as a result of public
processions, agitations, etc. Can the aggrieved party receive any relief in the case of the
occurrence of incidents like the ones mentioned above? Can these acts be held legally liable?
The answer is torts under English law classify these acts under the category of ‘nuisance’.

Starting off to include the violation or breach of easement rights of an individual, the tort of
nuisance has evolved from rural and agricultural rights to injuries to safety and health. It
includes the duty of the defendant, who is now expanded to cover companies and industries
besides individuals, to prevent the offence from taking place, among many other such
evolutions which we will slowly unravel. As can be inferred from the examples given above,
the commission or omission of an act within their premises that is deemed to be unlawful in a
way that it then leads to hindrance, damage or annoyance in some form as a result of said act
in relation to a person’s right is termed as nuisance. Although it is discernible from the terms
in itself, when this hindrance or damage is with regard to a specific individual, it gives rise to
a private nuisance, thus making it a civil tort. The remedy being the awarding of damages and
injunctions under private lawsuits. A bunch/class of people defined under Section 12 of the
IPC, getting affected in consequence of this act, is termed as public nuisance. Curbing the
creation of a ruckus and hindrance in the process of speedy adjudication, which occurs due to
the multiple filed suits by the community at large, the law makes the offence of public
nuisance a criminal one, prosecuted publicly. However, this illegal status was later dropped.
Public nuisance, as defined under section 268 of IPC, generally affects the health, safety and
comfort or rights of the public at large, while private nuisance deals with indirect prevention
of the enjoyment of a person’s right to their own land that is different from trespass or
causing physical discomfort to someone.
One must comprehend and make a note of the core principle that can be inferred from the
maxim sic utere tuo ut rem publicum non laedas, and that underlines public nuisance that one
must enjoy their property in such a way that that doesn’t cause any harm or injury to the
rights of others(private) or the public in general.

2|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
Nuisance has extended to matters such as live sex shows, usurious small loan businesses etc.1
A specific individual amongst a class must show an injury varying in degree and kind2
(except in Florida) thus making it special and different from that of the general public getting
him/her specifically a separate remedy which generally is not permitted in a suit of public
nuisance. This became possible post changes in the law in the 16th century. It was in Dr.
Ramraj Singh v. Babulal3 that a claim for private liability from an instance of public nuisance
arose. In Campbell v Paddington Corporation4, the plaintiff had arranged for people to view
the King Edward VII’s Parade that was to pass from a highway that his building directly
faced. When a structure built by the defendant’s company on that highway for their members
to view the same procession, obstructed the plaintiff party’s view it resulted in the loss of a
profitable deal for him thus allowing him the ability to claim special damages for the same.

There are also cases where the public at large is affected, along with specific individuals
gaining both aspects of the different categories, giving it the term of mixed nuisance. The
case of Bishop Processing Co. v Davis5 & Winstein v. Lake Pearl Park, Inc6 can be employed
to gain insight into this concept of mixed nuisance. The former case constitutes the pollution
of air and the proliferation of a mile’s distance with a stench by an animal processing plant
owned and run by the defendant, making up for a public wrong. At the same time, the
headaches, discomfort, loss of appetite and throat infections caused amongst its neighbours
are sufficient for private nuisance also to be roped in as a contended issue.

Although, the existence of a nuisance, public or private, doesn’t always leave open the
possibility for people to be compensated or to raise claims for damages.

Another essential requirement to constitute the tort of nuisance is that there should be a
severe, unwarranted and unreasonable interference with the rights to the enjoyment of the
plaintiff's land. “A balance must be struck between the right of the defendant to do what he
likes with his own and that of his neighbour to not be interfered with”7. This is also backed
by the Latin maxim “Den minimis non-curat lex”, which states that the law (or the court)
doesn’t give interpretation or justification of very tiny or insignificant matters. For example,

1
Rothstein, Mark A, Private Actions for Public Nuisance: The Standing Problem, Vol 76, Issue 4, West
Virginia Law Review, June 1974, 453-480, 455
2
Claubaugh v. Harris, 567 U.S. 890 (2012)
3
Doctor Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, AIR 1982 All 285
4
Campbell v. Paddington Corporation, [1911] 1 K.B. 869
5
Bishop Processing Co. v. Davis, 498 U.S. 125 (1990)
6
Winstein v. Lake Pearl Park, Inc., 543 U.S. 789 (2005)
7
Public and Private Nuisance - A Jurisprudential Analysis, 1.3 JCLJ (2021) 497
3|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
playing a radio at a particular time that happens to coincide with a person’s academic
schedule cannot be termed as nuisance, and thus, a suit cannot be filed against the same.

DEFENCES:

Suppose a nuisance has continued to take place for an extended period without being refuted
or raised allegations against. In that case, it might start to be accepted as legitimate, giving it
the defence of a prescriptive right, i.e. the right to continue with a person’s own activities.
However, this is not a fixed rule and varies according to circumstances, such as in the case of
‘Sturges v Bridgman’8 where the plaintiff on coming in close proximity on account of the
creation of a room in his garden to the defendant candy maker’ kitchen after a period of 20
years had begun to feel the impact of the noise and vibrations coming from the use of large
mortars and pestles. The court still ruled in favour of the plaintiff and granted him the right to
an injunction on the grounds that the time considered shall not be 20 years but since the
inception of the building.

Another criterion immunizing the liability arising from a tort of nuisance is authorization of
the said nuisance by law or any other legislation. Thus, according to Lord Halsbury, a railway
company is an excellent example of the same.

However, there are some defences that people must note are not applicable, such as:

The defence that the act causing nuisance was not performed alone and involved the
participation of multiple people only, thereby causing nuisance. Any of those individuals can
be held responsible regardless of their individual contribution. For example, suppose 50
people park their cars in a designated no-parking area, causing nuisance. In that case, any or
all of them can be held accountable, notwithstanding their claim that their individual action
must not have led to severe harm. The defence of causing interference or nuisance for the
sake of the greater good of the community or public is no defence as is supported in the case
of ‘Sheffer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co’9 where the construction of an electric
powerhouse was a necessity which was taken up by the defendant but resulted in damage to
the plaintiff’s house thus not applicable as a defence.

8
Sturges v. Bridgman, [1979] 2 Ch.D. 852
9
Sheffer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co, [1895] 1 Ch. 287
4|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
The employment of reasonable care taken in furtherance of prevention of the nuisance can
also not be a defence under any circumstance.

Today, nuisance varies significantly from jurisdiction to state and state to state. While the US
and India reply on common law principles that use local statutes and precedents as a base to
decide on cases of nuisance, England has a well-developed body of case laws detailing the
elements of nuisance to do the same. In India and the US, public nuisance may encompass
broader actions that affect the public as opposed to England, which requires a more direct
interference with public interests and resources.

CONCLUSION:

Despite this variation in nuisance, the remedies available remain the same, i.e. damages
according to the stipulation under the concerned agreement and statute, an injunction, i.e. a
judicial order that restrains people from executing acts that infringe other people’s rights,
abatement, i.e. negotiation outside the courtroom without the initiation of any legal
proceedings. The elements constituting nuisance and the core principles guiding it remain the
same throughout. In conclusion, nuisance holds significant importance as a concept under the
law of torts, be it private or public or in India or the UK or the US.

REFERENCES:
1. Huffman, James L, Public Nuisance: Public Rights, Private Rights and the Common
Good, Vol.17, Issue 2, Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, 2022, 314.
2. Prosser, William L, Private Action for Public Nuisance, Vol. 52, Issue 6, Virginia Law
Review, 1996, 997.
3. Abrams, Robert; Washington, Val, The misunderstood law of public nuisance: A
comparision with private nuisance twenty years after boomer, 54 Alb. L. Rev. 359
(1989-1990)
4. RA NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE, 12TH EDITION, VOL.2, CHAPTER XIV of
Offences Affecting the Public Health, Safety, Convience, Decency and Morals
5. PSA PILLAI: CRIMINAL LAW, 14TH EDITION, CHAPTER 27, Indian Penal Code
Sections 268 to 294A
6. Harsh Jain, Public and Private Nuisance- A Jurisprudential Analysis, 1.3 JCLJ (2021)
497
7. Jemimah Mathew, Historical Development: Tort of Negligence and Tort of Nuisance,
The National University of Advanced Legal Studies.
8. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/public-nuisance-lawyers.html

5|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
 9. Public Nuisance As A Tort A comparative analysis between USA, UK, and
India, Prime Legal.
10. Goyal, Deepak, Law Relating to Public Nuisance in India, Vol.2, Issue 1, International
Journal of Law Management and Humanities, 2019, 193.

11. Anant, Public Nuisance As A Tort A comparative analysis between USA, UK, and
India, Legalservicesindia.

6|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
 7|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
 8|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269
 9|Page
Submitted by Bhakti Agarwal
23010126269