Nuisance
S, for the purposes of his business, kept horses and vans standing outside B's coffee-house all day long.This caused an obstruction to the highway, a public nuisance.
B complained that he suffered special damage because the vans obstructed the light to his windows and he had to incur expense in keeping gas lights burning all day long. He further alleged that the smell of the horses made the premises objectionable and deterred customers.
These facts constituted special damage which would entitle B to maintain an action against S.
If a person suffers special damage as the result of a public nuisance he may bring an action in tort against the person who created the nuisance.
A public nuisance is a crime indictable at common law and restrainable by injunction at the suit of the Attorney-General.
Bradford Corpn v. Pickles 1895
Water percolated in undefined channels beneath P's land and flowed thence to land belonging to the appellant corporation.
The corporation used this water for their city supply.
Actuated by a desire to force the corporation to buy his land at his own price, P obstructed the flow of water by sinking shafts into it.
No injunction was granted.
A previous decision of the HL had laid down that whereas it is a nuisance to obstruct the flow of water when it runs from one's own land to another's in defined channels it is no nuisance to extract merely percolating water (this would obstruct land drainage).
Draining the land was lawful, therefore P had a right to do it, however ill his motive might have been.
Private nuisance case.
Caminer v. Northern and London Investment Trust Ltd. 1951
An elm tree was growing on land of which the defendants were the lessees. It fell onto the highway injuring the plaintiff
and damaging his car. The tree was 130 years old and was affected by elm butt rot.
The defendants were not held liable.
They could not by reasonable examination have discovered the existence of this disease.
Exception to LEAKEY v. NATIONAL TRUST (1980).
Castle v. St. Augustine's Links Ltd. 1922
The plaintiff was a taxi driver who lost his eye when a golf ball was sliced onto the road from a tee on the defendant's
The plaintiff was entitled to recover in nuisance.
Balls had constantly been driven onto the road at the place.
The duration or repetition of an obnoxious activity may sometimes be relevant.
Compare:
A building next to a fruit shop was renovated.
The owner said that this was a public nuisance.
No public nuisance.
Only a temporary inconvenience, law of give and take.
You have to prove that you have a special inconvenience if you claim for public nuisance.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emmett 1936
The defendant had ordered his son to fire guns on his land as near as possible to the plaintiff's land in order that the plaintiff's vixen might miscarry.
The plaintiffs were awarded damages (nuisance).
If the law concedes to people the privilege of doing things without conferring upon them a positive right, the element of 'malice' may render an otherwise lawful activity unlawful.
Had there been no evidence of spite, and had the damage been caused without malicious intent, the plaintiffs would have had no claim.
A man could not accept the break-up. He threatened his wife with telephone calls and damaged her car, for which he was prosecuted (conditional discharge). He did not stop and threatened to kill her (six weeks of imprisonment). The telephone calls continued, also her mother, her new boyfriend and his mother (injunction to stop all these things).Being sued, he claimed there was no such tort.
Injunction to prevent and to stop mental stress.
We do not have to wait until somebody is really badly injured; there was a tendency to cause a nervous shock.
Look at the problem as a whole.
This conduct could be brought under the
The defendants permitted a hillside to collapse through weathering upon the plaintiff's land.
They were liable.
Nuisance is also possible if someone being able to abate it, permits it to continue once he knows that it exists upon his premises (must be reasonable).
See also:
Vibrations from an engine upon adjoining premises caused a cistern to fall upon and injure the wife of an occupier.
The wife had no right of action in nuisance.
She had no proprietary or possessory interest, actual or prospective, in the land.
As the the law NOW stands, she would have a claim in negligence; Compare
Three attorneys in Clifford's Inn claimed against public noise.
Three is not sufficient, rather a private matter.
Keyword: unreasonableness, law of give and take.
Note that in Canada seven members of a family are sufficient.
The plaintiff occupied the upper part of a house and the defendant the lower.
For the purpose of his business the defendant had to use a furnace.
The heat thus generated damaged some brown paper which the plaintiff had in store.
This paper was exceptionally sensitive to heat.
No claim in nuisance.
Ordinary paper would not have been damaged under these circumstances.
A person who is abnormally sensitive must put up with inconveniences which cause harm to him by reason of this exceptional sensitivity.
The plaintiff was on the highway near a cricket ground when she was injured by a ball hit out of the ground.
The plaintiff failed to recover in nuisance.
Balls had seldom before been known to be hit onto the road.
The duration or repetition of an obnoxious activity may sometimes be relevant.
Compare: