1

Law of torts; Nuisance

Student's Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Name and Number

Professor's Name

Due Date
 2

Identification of Issues

Nuisance is anything done in annoyance or to hurt someone or their land. It

consists in causing or allowing to cause, without justification by the law, the exposure of

any harmful substance such as smoke, water, gas, electricity, heat, and other pollutants

from one's land or anywhere into the land possessed by the plaintiff. Nuisance also

includes the loss or annoyance caused to other people. Nuisance can therefore be

classified into two major categories; public and private nuisance.1 Private nuisance

states that property owners are entitled to enjoy and use their land and that other

parties should never interfere.2 To prove that it is a nuisance, the plaintiff must prove

that they are the owner or have the right to possess the land and that the defendant's

actions interfered with the plaintiff's comfort or enjoyment of his land. According to case

law Malone v Laskey, one must have a proprietary interest in a property for a nuisance

claim to hold.3 Also, the interference must be substantial. Private nuisance should either

lead to property damage or physical discomfort. Any injury is sufficient to support a civil

action, possibly from fumes, smoke, noise, gas, filth, water, animals, or trees. In case of

physical discomfort, the act must be over the natural or recommended levels to interfere

with the ordinary comfort of humans.

Analysis and Evidence of Research

The plaintiffs, in this case, include Eve, Malik, Luna, Luna's clients, Waverly

Collage, and Arabella with different nuisance claims. To start, Waverly was a peaceful

village with a quiet school and nice orchards. The first plaintiff is Eve, who owns an

orchard of apple trees on the land bordering the factory. Eve can make a nuisance

1
Gearty C, “The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts” (1989) 48 The Cambridge Law Journal 214
2
Steele J, “Private Law and the Environment: Nuisance in Context” (1995) 15 Legal Studies 236
3
Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KN 141
 3

claim under two arguments, noise and property damage. The spill of toxic chemicals

from the factory into Eve’s caused many of her trees to die. It is property damage

directly caused by the factory's operations.4 To strengthen the case, Eve can prove that

she owns the land and that the damage to the trees can be directly linked to the toxic

spill from the factory. It was also irresponsible and unreasonable for Keisha to

carelessly store toxic chemicals at the edge of the property. Eve also suffered physical

discomfort from the allergic reaction to the chemicals, ordinary human existence is

impossible under such a toxic environment as it is intolerable.5 Then another aspect is

the noise which affects Eve's farm and causes physical discomfort. It can be proven that

bats are sensitive to noise and that the only reason they abandoned the firm was the

noise. The noise interfered with the use of the land as Eve was now unable to control

the pests and enjoy her fruits. Eve's nuisance claims are provable and could make a

strong case against Keisha. Based on the Rylands v Fletcher case, the toxic chemicals

escaped Keisha’s land to harm Eve’s land, Keshaa ought to have conducted due care

to ensure her activities do not harm others.6 In this case, the defendant can use

prescription as a legal defense to prove that she had the legal right to operate the

factory since it has been in operation long before she came in. It can however not hold

since she changed the normal operation schedule during the weekdays.7 The expansion

caused more acts of a nuisance.

Malik also directly suffered as a result of the factory activities. His work depended

on the condition of the orchard; he could not continue with the paintings he was working

4
Steele J, “Private Law and the Environment: Nuisance in Context” (1995) 15 Legal Studies
5
Gearty C, “The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts” (1989) 48 The Cambridge Law Journal 214
6
Rylands v Fletcher
7
Neyers JW, “RECONCEPTUALISING THE TORT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE” (2017) 76 The Cambridge Law Journal 87
 4

on since the view became distorted. The apple trees died and the factory ruined the

view. The injury from this is the loss Malik and Eve will face because they cannot sell

the painting. In this aspect, enjoying the land was the benefit of a good drawing from the

nice view that could not happen due to the factory operations. There is also an element

of physical discomfort as Malik was bothered by the excessive noise from the factory. In

Keisha’s defense, Malik cannot file a private nuisance claim and has no ownership or

possession claim to the land. This defense will hold but under the Occupiers' Liability

Act of 1957, Eve will be responsible for Malik's claims and any damages he had from

the interference.8

Luna is another plaintiff who owns the property on the other side of the factory,

her work as a yoga instructor demands a quiet environment, and she has been doing it

for many years. The noise from the factory was a private nuisance that affected her

business as her customers were concerned about the noise and vibrations, and the roof

parties that directly overlooked them. The visitors at the factory were also bothering

Luna's clients by taking pictures which made them uncomfortable. It is a loss of

business that can be directly linked to the factory's activities; she could no longer enjoy

her land.9 Also, there is visible damage to the property caused by the vibrations; the

threads on Luna's rear and a valuable antique Tibetan rug were damaged. To Luna's

clients, the noise, the vibration, and evasion of privacy by the visitors that were taking

pictures of the yoga sessions constitute a nuisance. However, her customers’ claims

can only be made by Luna since she was responsible for them at her property

according to the Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957.10 The defense for the claim that she

8
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
9
Steele J, “Private Law and the Environment: Nuisance in Context” (1995) 15 Legal Studies
10
Occupiers’ Liability Act 957
 5

had the statutory authority to run the factory on her land. But this can be countered with

the argument that she did not observe reasonable care in running the factory. The

Sturges v Bridgeman case provides guidelines on reasonable noise.11

A public nuisance is also part of the issues as the people at Waverly Collage

faced a common annoyance and danger from exposure to the factory. First, there is the

disturbance of common peace from the noise, vibrations, and frequent roof deck parties.

The movement was disturbed by the large number of trucks accessing the factory and

visitors' vehicles. Also, cases of asthma can be directly linked to the fumes from

vehicles and factories posing a health risk and risk of injury from road accidents.12 This

can be classified as a statutory public nuisance as it involves fumes and is a public

health concern, as explained under the Environmental Protection Act of 1990. 1314

Arabella's nuisance claim can be treated as part of the common public nuisance claim

by Waverly College since she is exposed to the smell of dyes while on the school

premises. The school is responsible for her welfare. In this case, authority can be

exercised through injunctions to restrain Keisha from nuisance acts. In her defense

against Arabella’s claim, Kesha can use the defense of the plaintiff coming to nuisance,

that Arabella exposed herself to the factory activity. However, it will not hold since the

factory activity affected the whole school area.

Legal Principles

Among the legal principles, in this case, are unreasonable interference leading to

a private nuisance which constitutes the neighborhood, the sensitivity of the plaintiff,

11
Sturges v Bridgeman
12
Neyers JW, “RECONCEPTUALISING THE TORT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE” (2017) 76 The Cambridge Law Journal 87
13
Environmental Protection Act 1990
14
Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993
 6

duration of the nuisance, defendant malice, and public benefit. The neighborhood's

character refers to what is reasonably expected to happen in a certain area; it is

unreasonable for the factory to make such noise and emissions in this neighborhood

with schools, farms, and private activities.15 This is explained in the Sturges v

Bridgeman case.16 The sensitivity of the claimant is determined by looking at the

factory's effects on a reasonable or normal individual. It is determined that if the plaintiff

is unusually sensitive, the claim can be recognized. There also must be a reasonable

continuity to the duration; it is likely to reoccur or be instigated by one act. 17 A once-in-a-

lifetime event does not constitute a nuisance. The principle of public benefit is

considered; if the defendant's activities benefit the general public, the courts allow it, but

they will have to act reasonably not to cause unreasonable annoyance. Malice

determines if the defendant's actions were deliberate in spite and hostility to classify

them as unreasonable.

Unclear situations in the law

The claimant's sensitivity results in many unclear situations in the law due to

theoretical inconsistencies. The plaintiff must have a subjective personal proprietary

interest, but the claim they make takes an objective view in the courts. It is also unclear

what constitutes an unreasonably sensitive situation, as people have different levels of

sensitivity when exposed to environmental factors. Also, the view that the claimant must

be using their land for usual purposes does not explain the usual purposes. It infringes

on the right of people to use their land for whatever reasonable reason they want.

Solutions and Recommendations

15
Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993
16
Sturges v Bridgeman [1879] 11 Ch 852
17
Gearty C, “The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts” (1989) 48 The Cambridge Law Journal 214
 7

The main solution to the case above is to follow the legal proceedings to ensure

the defendant takes care of the nuisance and compensates those affected by the

factory's operations. Keisha can also consider moving to an industrial neighborhood

where the disturbance is acceptable. A major recommendation is to expand the law to

address the personal proprietary issue to ensure anyone can file for private nuisance

regardless of location.
 8

Bibliography

Cases

Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KN 141

Sturges v Bridgeman [1879] 11 Ch 852

Statutes and Statutory Instruments

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Secondary Sources

Gearty C, “The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts” (1989) 48 The

Cambridge Law Journal 214

Neyers JW, “RECONCEPTUALISING THE TORT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE” (2017) 76

The Cambridge Law Journal 87

Steele J, “Private Law and the Environment: Nuisance in Context” (1995) 15 Legal

Studies 236