Public and Private Nuisances - Research Paper Example

Public and Private Nuisances This paper addresses both public and private nuisance by expounding on their definitions. It also explains the conditions that should be met before a nuisance claim is presented to a law court. The illustrations given serve to better explain the types of nuisances in a way that can easily be understood. The law describes nuisance as public or private depending on the case it attracts. Private nuisance occurs when the comfort and convenience of a person who rightfully owns the land they possess occurs for a continuous period of time. This nuisance is a civil wrong and attracts a civil case normally tried in a civil court. For there to be any private nuisance claim made, the plaintiff must provide the court with substantial proof of interference. It is then within the court’s jurisdiction to judge the reasonableness of the defendant’s behavior and try to establish fault from evaluating it. This establishes a balance between the two sides since the court evaluates the evidence before making a ruling. The court rules in favor of the plaintiff if it can establish that the plaintiff suffered because of the interference and will continue to do so unless compensated by the defendant (Dodson 2002, pg. 60). On the other hand, the statute defines public nuisance as any criminal activity which threatens the community as a whole. It is a criminal offence therefore; it attracts criminal cases tried by the criminal courts. The plaintiff in these cases is the state which represents the entire community and not a person or a group. On rare occasions do individuals benefit from a criminal case directly, for example, a person qualifies for a personal injury claim warranting compensation if the criminal activity in trial directly affected them. A good illustration of a public nuisance includes companies held liable for dumping hazardous waste materials into water catchment areas (Scott 2001, pg.68). However, some cases attract both private and public nuisance claims. The illustration mentioned above serves as a good example. The company could be held liable by the state for the polluting of a water catchment area which benefits the entire community. It can also be held liable by owners of the land adjacent to the water catchment area. They could claim that the companys negligent actions had adverse effects on the enjoyment of their comfortable homes (Scott 2001, pg. 77). Legislation describes the phrase interest in land’ in a way that attempts to include land solely owned by an individual in a legal manner. Meaning, the owner has all the legal documents which prove that transfer of ownership of the land followed the required legal procedures. The definition also includes leased land acquired through leasing agreements. The law also ensures the term is extensive in its coverage. This means that, it also includes land which is rich in minerals. It also covers mineral rights possessed by the owner of the land. The interest in land also includes any fixed asset located on the land built by the inhabitants. Therefore, a nuisance claim has jurisdiction over any land described by the interest in land legislation. Meaning, plaintiffs have the mandate to file civil and criminal cases provided they can support their claims (Fischel 1985, pg.168). The validity of nuisance claims depends on the ability of the court to deduce the intention of the defendants. Legislation defines intention of defendant as the motives behind the actions or behavior of a defendant. Since, intentions originate from a person’s mind they cannot be physically proved in a court of law. However, analyzing the actions of a person and their behaviors provide proof of intentions. The probability of behavior or actions occurring in a random manner is extremely low. However, the probability of premeditated behaviors or actions occurring is exceptionally high. People’s motives guide the decisions they make in their day-to-day lives. With regard to filing a nuisance claim, the plaintiff seeks to benefit in the event that the defendant’s intention appears malicious. Meaning, factors such as negligence, malice among other factors constitute in the sentencing of a defendant (Paul 1990, pg.77). Legislation defines neighborhood character as the unique characteristics present in a place which differentiates that place from other places. This includes; vegetation, topography, significant landmarks among other things. It also includes the design and layout of the houses present in that neighborhood. The legislation applies to both public and private domains. Different neighborhoods have different expectations. They set different rules and regulations to govern the inhabitants of that neighborhood. This ensures people co-exist peacefully despite the cultural differences prevailing among them. Disregarding of the rules and regulations might attract a civil suit. The accused might face private nuisance charges if the court identifies behavior which is negligent or purposely directed towards the infliction of harm in the neighborhood. The state might sometimes file criminal charges against perpetrators on behalf of a neighborhood. For instance, if a neighborhoods construction was on a dumpsite previously owned by a company and the waste material contaminates the water making the inhabitants sick. The state can file can prosecute the company based on the company’s negligent actions threatened the health of the public. The neighborhood also benefits from these charges because these actions affected them directly (Fischel 1985, pg.107). The sensitivity of claimant refers to the level of tolerance acceptable to a normal neighbor. The standard of measure with regard to sensitivity relies on what individuals define as being normal when interacting with those around them. These definitions are universal and are in no way based on any cultural, racial or ethnic constraints. Individuals can file nuisance charges under the sensitivity of claimant statute provided the nature of the nuisance falls under the normal category. Meaning, individuals with nuisance complaints, who have abnormal sensitivity, do not get compensation received from a private nuisance claim. In the case; Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch D 88; the plaintiff filed a civil suit against his neighbor citing damage to his abnormally sensitive paper. He claimed that the heat from the adjoining house was to blame. The courts ruled in favor of the defendant stating that ordinary paper cannot be affected by the heat (Scott 2001, pg.288). The defendant’s lack of care results from his intentions to act or behave in a negligent manner. Lack of care originates from breach of duty. Meaning, an individuals expectations include showing care in his line of duty since the assumption that he is a reasonable man resonates within the plaintiff’s mind. In the Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1933) case, LJ Greer attempts to define a reasonable person. He manages to do this by equating him to the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Greer’s equation takes into account the imperfect nature of men which predisposes them to make mistakes. However, despite this weakness, there is a certain level of prudence and care expected from them. The level varies depending on the scenario, whereby, some rely on high levels of expectations, for example, medical professionals. On the other hand, some scenarios rely on low levels of expectations. Therefore, a plaintiff can file charges against a defendant provided there was a breach of duty which led to the defendant’s lack of care (Scott 200, pg.156). The laws definition of personal injury includes; any physiological, psychological or emotional injury inflicted on a person. However, it clearly stipulates that any damage on personal property does not constitute a personal injury claim. An analysis of Aimee’s case shows that she qualified to file charges citing private nuisance. This is because she was not a claimant with abnormal sensitivity. However, further research on the case indicates that she could not prove that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable. This automatically meant that she could not qualify to file a private nuisance claim. Private nuisance cases depend on the plaintiff’s ability to prove the defendant’s unreasonable conduct. Aimee’s alternative solution was to file a personal injury suit. This is because she could prove to the courts that the defendant inflicted emotional and psychological injuries on her through his actions. She would, therefore, qualify for some form of compensation of the court rules in her favor (Wade 1994, pg.105). One of the potential defenses includes a defendant justifying his actions by claiming his actions are in line with existing legislation. This mostly works where licenses and zoning laws have jurisdiction. Other defendants might claim in their defense that the plaintiff moved into a place where the nuisance was already in existence. This defense strategy might not excuse the defendant’s unreasonable conduct entirely. However, it might be helpful when the court is evaluating the plaintiff’s prior knowledge of the nuisance since realtors’ have an obligation to disclose such information to potential buyers. Meaning, the defendant’s punishment might be less severe if compared to the sentence received without this defense strategy (Paul 1990, pg.156). The most common remedy for private nuisance cases is monetary compensation. The monetary compensation caters for all damages caused by the nuisance. In unusually severe cases does the court opt to order an injunction. Legislation defines an injunction as an order given by a court to a defendant ordering them to cease unlawful conduct. In the case of public nuisance cases which attract criminal charges, the remedies might be severe for the defendants if found guilty. Firstly, the monetary compensations are extraordinarily high. The defendant might also be sentenced to serve time in prison in extreme situations if the court finds him guilty. In addition to all these punitive measures, the court also orders an injunction which puts an end to the threatening actions of the defendant. Other remedies include self-help remedies, which may only, work under unusual circumstances, for example, abetment by the plaintiff. This involves the plaintiff informing the defendant about the nuisance and giving him time to rectify the problem. The filing of charges occurs, in the event, which the defendant failed to heed to the warning. The laws definition of a public nuisance includes; any threat to the welfare of the public. It covers all sectors affecting the daily lives of the entire public. The following cases attract public nuisances charges; Aimee’s and Wally’s cases. However, they both depend on the occurrence of a single condition. This is the winning of the public nuisance charges against the defendants prosecuted by the state. This is because individuals and groups are not beneficiaries of public nuisance claims unless the fulfillment of this condition happens. Also, public nuisance cases require for the plaintiff to prove unreasonable conduct. This means that the state should be able to prove that the defendant’s action or behavior was inconsiderate of the welfare of the public. Furthermore, the defendant pursued his quest in a negligent manner driven by harmful intentions, which threatened, the entire public. The case against the factory filed by the state serves as a strong illustration of a public nuisance case (Wade 1984, pg.187). As discussed earlier, Aimee was unable to file a private nuisance claim. However, if the public nuisance suit against the factory proves successful, she could sue on those grounds too. In normal circumstances, a public nuisance does not benefit an individual or group directly. Instead, it benefits the entire public because a public nuisance poses a threat to the entire public. However, some circumstances allow for an individual to file a suit after the state has already won their claim based on similar charges brought forward by the individual. This includes the defendants unreasonable action directly threatening and harming the plaintiff. Aimee’s initial evidence served to qualify her for a personal injury claim. Therefore, the same proof if presented in a court as evidence to the public nuisance claim, can help to show that Aimee was a victim affected by the factory’s unreasonable conduct (Wade 1984, pg.202). The same conditions apply to Wally’s case. A recap of the case shows Wally driving along the highway and making a stop when tragedy hit. The state, therefore, sued the factory responsible for the occurrence of the tragic incident. The claim presented to the court was a public nuisance claim. This is because the defendant threatened the welfare of the entire public especially those travelling on the highway. Wally was part of the group using the highway when tragedy struck and suffered the effects of this tragedy directly. Therefore, if the state wins the case against the factory, Wally can sue the factory on similar grounds. However, the fact that he had parked his car along the highway as confirmed by two witnesses complicates the ease with which he can win the case. On the other hand, if Wally is to win the case he stands to receive monetary compensation from the defendant (Wade 1984, pg.56). In conclusion, the definitions and case given above show clearly the distinction between public and private nuisances. However, it is necessary to take note of the similarities present in the two types of nuisances. Explanations on the factors affecting nuisance cases and illustrations have also been given. Individuals should, therefore, be well informed by their legal representatives about these requirements before wasting their time and money in pursuing a weak case. Bibliography Dodson, Robert D. 2002, "Rethinking Private Nuisance Law: Recognizing Esthetic Nuisances in the New Millennium," South Carolina Environmental Law Journal 10. Fischel, William A. 1985, The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Paul, Ellen Frankel, and Howard Dickman, eds. 1990. Liberty, Property, and the Future of Constitutional Development, Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. Scott, Michael S. 2001, Loud Car Stereos, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Wade, John W., et al., 1994, Prosser, Wade, and Schwartzs Cases and Materials on Torts, 9th ed. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press. Read More