Skip to main content

Nuisance under Tort Law by Mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq

 Nuisance under Tort Law

Introduction

Ownership of a piece of property is a legal right that must be respected. As long as the inappropriate use or enjoyment of another's property results in an unlawful interference with his enjoyment or use of that property or some rights over it, we can argue that a nuisance tort has been committed. From "nuire," which meaning "to harm, or to hurt, or to annoy," the word "nuisance" was coined. Necessity is derived from the Latin word "nocere," which translates to "injury." Nuisance is a violation of a person's right to unhindered enjoyment of his or her property, which is caused by another person's improper use of it.

Definitions

According to Stephen, nuisance is anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the tenements of another, or of the lands, one which doesn’t amount to trespass.

According to Salmond, nuisance consists in causing or allowing to cause without lawful justification, the escape of any deleterious thing from one’s land or from anywhere into land in possession of the plaintiff, such as water, smoke, gas, heat, electricity, etc.

Essentials

  1. Wrongful Act - If you do something with the goal of violating someone else's legal rights, you have committed an unlawful conduct.

  2. Damage or loss or annoyance caused to another individual - The harm, loss, or irritation must be substantial enough for the law to deem it a material element of the claim.

Various kinds of Nuisance 

  1. Public Nuisance : As defined by the Indian Penal Code, a nuisance is an act that causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the persons who live or work in the neighbourhood, or who may have necessity to exercise any public right in the future. Those who live in a community or a significant section of it are subject to public nuisance, which impairs their ability to enjoy their property rights. It is considered a public nuisance if an act has a significant impact on the general population's health, safety, or comfort.

  2. Private Nuisance: This type of nuisance is characterised by the disruption of a person's use or enjoyment of their property by another person or persons. It may also cause harm to the property owner, either by physical damage or by interfering with his or her enjoyment of the property. In contrast to public nuisance, an individual's use or enjoyment of their property is harmed in private nuisance, as opposed to the general public or society. A legal action for damages or an injunction, or maybe both, can be brought for private nuisance.

 

Rose v Miles(1815) 4M & S.101- This type of nuisance is characterised by the disruption of a person's use or enjoyment of their property by another person or persons. It may also cause harm to the property owner, either by physical damage or by interfering with his or her enjoyment of the property. In contrast to public nuisance, an individual's use or enjoyment of their property is harmed in private nuisance, as opposed to the general public or society. A legal action for damages or an injunction, or maybe both, can be brought for private nuisance.

Conclusion

The issue of annoyance is one that comes up frequently in everyday life, and Indian courts have drawn heavily on English precedents and principles as well as common law decisions to develop their own precedents. To ensure the justice and well-being for all parties involved, such as in the case of private annoyance, as well as public nuisance, when society as a whole is being impacted, this has helped the notion of nuisance in the field of law evolve rather considerably.


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