The Similarities and Differences Between Public and Private Nuisance - Essay Example

Critically examine the similarities and differences betweeen public and private Nuisance. Support your answer with relevant statute and case law.. please use UK laws, cases, and statutes Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.(Winfield on Tort, 7th ed.p.193) Acts interfering with the comfort, health or safety are the examples of it. The interference may be any way, e.g., noise, vibrations, heat, smoke, smell, fumes, water, gas, electricity, excavation or disease producing germs. Nuisance is of two kinds : (i) Public or Common Nuisance. (ii) Private Nuisance, or Tort of Nuisance. Difference and Similarity between the two : Public nuisance is a crime whereas private nuisance is a civil wrong. Public nuisance is interference with the right of public in general and is punishable as an offense.: Obstructing a public way by digging a trench, or constructing structures on it are examples of public nuisance. Although such obstruction may cause inconvenience to many persons but none can be allowed to bring a civil action for that, otherwise there may be hundreds of actions for a. single act of public nuisance. To avoid multiplicity of suits the law makes public nuisance only an offence punishable under criminal law. In certain cases, when any person suffers some special or particular damage, different from what is inflicted upon public as a whole, a civil right of action is available to the person injured. What is otherwise a public nuisance, also becomes a private nuisance so far as the person suffering special damage as concerned. The expression special damage in this context means damage caused to a party in contradistinction to the public at largest For example, digging trench on a public highway may cause inconvenience to public at large. No member of the public, who is thus obstructed or has to take a diversion along with others, can sue under civil law. But if any one of them suffers more damage than suffered by the public at large, e.g., is severely injured by falling into the trench, he can sue in tort. In order to sustain a civil action in respect of a public nuisance proof of special and particular damage is essential. The proof of special damage entitles the plaintiff to bring a civil action for what may be otherwise a public nuisance. Thus, if the standing of horses and wagons for an unreasonably long time outside : mans house Creates darkness and bad smell for the occupants of the house and also obstructs the access of customers into it, the damage is ‘particular, direct and substantial’ and entitles the occupier to maintain an action.(Benjamin v. Storr,(1874) L.R.9C.P.400) In ‘Rose v. Milles’(1815; 4M.&S.101): the defendant wrongfully moored his barge across a public navigable crack. This blocked the way for plaintiffs barges and the plaintiff had to incur considerable expenditure in unloading the cargo and transporting the same by land. It was held that there was special damage caused to the plaintiffs support his claim. In ‘Campbell v. Paddington Corporation’(1911; 1K.B.869) the plaintiff was the owner of a building in London. The funeral procession of King Edward VII was to pass from a highway just in front of the plaintiffs building. An uninterrupted view of the procession could be had from the windows of the plaintiffs building. The plaintiff accepted certain payments from certain persons and invited them to occupy seats in the first and second floor of her building. Before the date of the said procession the defendant corporation constructed a stand on the highway in front of the plaintiffs building to enable She members of the Corporation and its guests to have a view of the procession. This structure now obstructed the view from the plaintiffs building. Because Of the obstruction the plaintiff was deprived of the profitable contract of letting seats in her building. She filed a suit against the Corporation contending that the structure on the highway, which was a public nuisance, had caused special loss to her. It was held that she was entitled to claim compensation. If the plaintiff cannot prove that he has suffered any special damage, i.e., more damage than suffered by the other members of the public, he cannot claim compensation for the same. The essentials of Private Nuisance : 1. Unreasonable Interference Interference may cause damage to the Plaintiff’s property or may cause personal discomfort to the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the property. But every interference is not a nuisance and to constitute nuisance the interference should be reasonable. Thesiger L.J. stated in ‘Sturges v. Bridgman’(1979) “what would be a nuisance in Belgrade square would not necessarily be so in Bremondsey.” Also in ‘Sadleigh Denfield v. O’Callaghan(1940) A.C.880 Lord Wright stated for the purpose of nuisance it has to be seen as to “what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in particular society.” If the Plaintiff is extra sensitive when the act that is otherwise reasonable does not become unreasonable and actionable when the damage, even though substantial, is caused solely due to the sensitivity of the plaintiff. It was stated in ‘Heath v. Mayor of Brighton’(1908) 98 L.T. 718 that the court refused to grant injunction in favour of the incumbent and trustees of a Brighton Church to restrain “ a buzzing noise” from the defendant’s power station. It was stated that the noise did not cause annoyance to any other person but the incumbent, nor was the noise such as could distract the attention of ordinary persons attending the church. It has also been ruled by the courts that if an act, otherwise lawful act of the defendant has been done with an evil motive to annoy the plaintiff will not be considered as nuisance. (‘Allen v. Flood’(1898)A.C.1) Interference with the use or enjoyment of land that constitutes a injury to the property itself or injury to comfort or health of occupants of the property will constitute nuisance. This position was adopted in (‘St. Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Tipping’ 1865; 11 H.L. Cas.642) A person also has a natural right to have his land supported by his neighbour’s and therefore removal of support, lateral or from beneath is a nuisance.(Humperies v. Brodgen ; 1850 ; 12 Q.B. 739). In respect of buildings the right of support may be acquired by grant or prescription.(‘Partridge v. Scott’ 1838; 2 M& W.220). Right to Light is also not a natural right and may be acquired by grant or prescription. When such a right has been acquired, a substantial interference with it is an actionable nuisance.(‘Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd.’ 1904; A.C.179). Substantial interference with the comfort and convenience in using the premises is actionable as a nuisance. A mere trifling or fanciful inconvenience is not enough. The rule is De minimis non curat lex, that means that the law does not take account of very trifling matters. DAMAGES Unlike trespass, which is actionable per se, actual damage is required to be proved in an action for nuisance.(‘Nicholls v. Ely Beet Sugar Factory’ 1936). In the case of Public Nuisance, the plaintiff has to prove a special damage caused to him while, in Private Nuisance, although damage is one of the essentials but the law often presumes it. Bibliography Bangia,R.K.; Law of Torts, ALA Read More