Law related to nuisance, by country[edit]

England[edit]
Main article: Nuisance in English law
The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance
divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at
Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though
related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary
distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the
only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.)
Under English law, unlike US law, it is no defence that the claimant "came to the
nuisance": the 1879 case of Sturges v Bridgman is still good law, and a new owner can
bring a claim in nuisance for the existing activities of a neighbour. In February 2014 the
UK Supreme Court ruling in the case of Coventry v Lawrence [12] prompted the launch of
a campaign[13] to have the "coming to a nuisance" law overturned. Campaigners hold
that established lawful activity continuing with planning permission and local residents'
support should be accepted as part of the character of the area by any new residents
coming to the locality.
United States[edit]
There is perhaps no more impenetrable jungle in the entire law than that which surrounds the word
'nuisance.' It has meant all things to all people, and has been applied indiscriminately to everything
from an alarming advertisement to a cockroach baked in a pie. There is general agreement that it is
incapable of any exact or comprehensive definition.
Prosser, W. Page; Keeton, W. Page (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.). St. Paul,
Minnesota: West Publishing. §§ 86, 616. ISBN 978-0314748805.

Many states have limited instances where a claim of nuisance may be brought. Such
limitation often became necessary as the sensibilities of urban dwellers were offended
by smells of agricultural waste when they moved to rural locations. For example: many
states and provinces have "right to farm" provisions, which allow any agricultural use of
land zoned or historically used for agriculture.
There are two classes of nuisance under the American law: a nuisance in fact, or
"nuisance per accidens", and a nuisance per se. The classification determines whether
the claim goes to the jury, or gets decided by the judge. An alleged nuisance in fact is
an issue of fact to be determined by the jury, who will decide whether the thing (or act)
in question created a nuisance, by examining its location and surroundings, the manner
of its conduct, and other circumstances.[14] A determination that something is a nuisance
in fact also requires proof of the act and its consequences. [14]
By contrast, a nuisance per se is "an activity, or an act, structure, instrument, or
occupation which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of
location or surroundings."[15] Liability for a nuisance per se is absolute, and injury to the
public is presumed; if its existence is alleged and established by proof, it is also
established as a matter of law.[16] Therefore, a judge would decide a nuisance per se,
while a jury would decide a nuisance in fact.
Most nuisance claims allege a nuisance in fact, for the simple reason that not many
actions or structures have been deemed to be nuisances per se. In general, if an act, or
use of property, is lawful, or authorized by competent authority, it cannot be a
nuisance per se.[17] Rather, the act in question must either be declared by public statute,
or by case law, to be a nuisance per se.[18] There are few state or federal statutes or
case law declaring actions or structures to be a nuisance in and of themselves. Few
activities or structures, in and of themselves and under any and all circumstances, are a
nuisance; which is how courts determine whether or not an action or structure is a
nuisance per se.[19]
Over the last 1000 years, public nuisance has been used by governmental authorities to
stop conduct that was considered quasi-criminal because, although not strictly illegal, it
was deemed unreasonable in view of its likelihood to injure someone in the general
public. Donald Gifford[20] argues that civil liability has always been an "incidental aspect
of public nuisance".[21] Traditionally, actionable conduct involved the blocking of a public
roadway, the dumping of sewage into a public river or the blasting of a stereo in a public
park.[22] To stop this type of conduct, governments sought injunctions either enjoining the
activity that caused the nuisance or requiring the responsible party to abate the
nuisance.
In recent decades, however, governments blurred the lines between public and private
nuisance causes of action. William Prosser noted this in 1966 and warned courts and
scholars against confusing and merging the substantive laws of the two torts. In some
states, his warning went unheeded and some courts and legislatures have created
vague and ill-defined definitions to describe what constitutes a public nuisance. For
example, Florida's Supreme Court has held that a public nuisance is any thing that
causes "annoyance to the community or harm to public health." [23]
A contemporary example of a nuisance law in the United States is the Article 40 Bylaw
of Amherst, Massachusetts known as the Nuisance House Bylaw. The law is voted on
by members of the town at town meetings. The stated purpose of such a law is "In
accordance with the Town of Amherst’s Home Rule Authority, and to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, this bylaw shall permit the Town to
impose liability on owners and other responsible persons for the nuisances and harm
caused by loud and unruly gatherings on private property and shall discourage the
consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage persons at such gatherings." [24]
In practice, the law works so that if one member of the neighborhood feels that there is
a neighbor's noise level is annoying or excessively loud, that neighbor is instructed to
inform the town police so that they can respond to the location of the noise. "The
responding officer has some discretion in how to deal with the noise complaint.... When
determining the appropriate response, the officer may take many factors into
consideration, such as the severity of the noise, the time of day, whether the residents
have been warned before, the cooperation of the residents to address the problem." [25][26]
The term is also used less formally in the United States to describe the non-meritorious
nature of frivolous litigation. A lawsuit may be described as a "nuisance suit", and
a settlement a "nuisance settlement", if the defendant pays money to the plaintiff to drop
the case primarily to spare the cost of litigation, rather than because the suit would have
a significant likelihood of winning.

Environmental nuisance[edit]
In the field of environmental science, there are a number of phenomena which are
considered nuisances under the law, including most notably noise, water and light
pollution. Moreover there are some issues that are not necessarily legal matters that are
termed environmental nuisance; for example, an excess population of insects or other
vectors may be termed a "nuisance population" in an ecological sense. [27]
In terms of environmental nuisance litigations, it is hard for someone to be successful in
this area due to the standing requirements of private and public nuisance. [28] It is the
Court's opinion that legislation should regulate this area. [29]
Particularly, in Australia, all the jurisdictions have such kind of legislation. [30][31]

From Britannica 1911[edit]

A common nuisance is punishable as a misdemeanour at common law, where no
special provision is made by statute. In modern times, many of the old common law
nuisances have been the subject of legislation. It's no defence for a master or employer
that a nuisance is caused by the acts of his servants, if such acts are within the scope of
their employment, even though such acts are done without his knowledge, and contrary
to his orders. Nor is it a defence that the nuisance has been in existence for a great
length of time, for no lapse of time will legitimate a public nuisance. [32]
A private nuisance is an act, or omission, which causes inconvenience or damage to a
private person, and is left to be redressed by action. There must be some sensible
diminution of these rights affecting the value or convenience of the property. "The real
question in all the cases is the question of fact, whether the annoyance is such as
materially to interfere with the ordinary comfort of human existence" (Lord
Romilly in Crump v. Lambert (1867) L.R. 3 Eq. 409). A private nuisance, differing in this
respect from a public nuisance, may be legalized by uninterrupted use for twenty years.
It used to be thought that, if a man knew there was a nuisance and went and lived near
it, he couldn't recover, because, it was said, it is he that goes to the nuisance, and not
the nuisance to him. But this has long ceased to be law, as regards both the remedy by
damages, and the remedy by injunction. [32]
The remedy for a public nuisance is by information, indictment, summary procedure or
abatement. An information lies in cases of great public importance, such as the
obstruction of a navigable river by piers. In some matters, the law allows the party to
take the remedy into his own hands, and to "abate" the nuisance. Thus; if a gate be
placed across a highway, any person lawfully using the highway may remove the
obstruction, provided that no breach of the peace is caused thereby. The remedy for a
private nuisance is by injunction, action for damages or abatement. An action lies in
every case for a private nuisance; it also lies where the nuisance is public, provided that
the plaintiff can prove that he has sustained some special injury. In such a case, the civil
is in addition to the criminal remedy. In abating a private nuisance, care must be taken
not to do more damage than is necessary for the removal of the nuisance. [32]
In Scotland, there's no recognized distinction between public and private nuisances.
The law as to what constitutes a nuisance is substantially the same as in England. A list
of statutory nuisances will be found in the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867, and
amending acts. The remedy for nuisance is by interdict, or action.. [32]