Skip to main content

nuisances in tort law

  


Nuisances in tort law

It means when a person gets disturbed by other without causing injury like disturbances through construction going on, loud sound, etc, for a continuous period of time the word nuisance has been derived from the French word ‘nuire’ which means causing a person harm or hurt without any physical damage. Sometimes could be difficult to defined, nuisances since it’s a tort law and tort law is not fully applied in Indian. It is like person breaking other person’s peace by unlawful interference or taking over some other person’s land illegally, etc. 

The nuisances have been defined 

  1. Public nuisances

  2. Private nuisances


Public nuisances


Public nuisances have been defined crime under section 268 of the Indian penal code. It refers to an unlawfully causing disturbance like when a person plays loud speaker in high pitch sound this can cause disturbances in general public, this affects a lot when this happens near school, colleges, hospitals, in a quite society, etc.  this affects to the public at large, sometimes one person enjoys and other frustrated.


  • In the case of Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babu Lal (1928) in this petition was filed under sec. 482cr pc. Judge says to pay off the damages to the ram raj since he has suffered injury and defendant has to pay the compensation amount under private injury. 

  • The person should show special and particular injury, public has the private right of action which he is suffered by the rest of public and the injury must be shown also to be of substantial character. 

  • The person can claim damage or compensation and also can file a case by using civil action process. 

  • Also, in case of St. Helen Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) in this the fume was coming out from the manufacturing plant which is a public nuisance but the plaintiff’s plants, flowers, tress in his garden gets all damage since the fume was affecting all the people but he file the case against the defendant because the plaintiff suffer from monetary damage so the court orders to pay the damages to the plaintiff. 


Essential of private nuisances


  1. Plaintiff should have rights to use/ enjoy the land

  2. Defendant should be doing unreadable use of land 

  3. Unreasonable interferences or damage, Robinson v Kilver (1889)- Exception cases cant claim damages, the judge said the person who exceptional trad practices that person couldn’t claims for damages so the plaintiff didn’t gets the compensation. 

  4. It should happen at a continuous period of time.



Remedies for nuisances 


  • The person can first file the case before the court and can claim for the damages or compensation amount.

  • Injunction it’s a judicial order in which a person can stops the other person from conducting illegal or threating act at a continuous period of time, this can be temporary and permanent also.

  • Abatement of nuisances it means when an occupier of land is permitted to abate, i.e., to terminate by his own act, nuisance which is affecting his land. For example, he may cut the (overhanging).

  • A 'notice' to the other party is required unless the nuisance constitute a danger to the life or property. When the abatement is possible without going on the wrongdoer's land, the same may be done without notice.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree