Nuisance In Environmental Law

Superior Essays
The above mentioned points are discussed in details as follows.

(a) Nuisance –
In the words of R.N.D. Hamiton “ the deepest doctrinal roots of modern environmental law are found in the common law principles of nuisance. It may be caused through escape of water, filthy liquid or substances, smokes, fumes, gas, noise, heat, vibrations, electricity, disease, bacteria, trees, etc”.
Literal meaning of nuisance is anything that annoys, hurts or offends, but for an interference to an actionable nuisance, the conduct of the defendant must be unreasonable. Further nuisance must not be momentary, but must continue for some time. A single short inconvenience is not actionable. There are two categories of Nuisance – Public and Private. Public Nuisance
…show more content…
Turnley declared that anything which lessens the comfort or endangers the health or safety of a neighbour must be an actionable nuisance. It was a case where the plaintiff complained of smoke and smell from the burning of bricks by the defendants. Similarly, large smelting works and vapour exhaled from those works did physical injury to the shrubs and trees on the plaintiff’s land and was held to be an actionable nuisance and air pollution. The Karnataka High Court in Lakshmipathy v. State, observed that air, water, land and noise nuisance were hazardous, and the industries cannot be permitted to operate while causing air and noise pollution affecting the quality of the environment. In the Case of B. Venkatappa v. B.Louis, The A.P. High Court upheld the lower court’s mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the holes in a chimney facing the plaintiff’s property. The Court ensured enforcement of its order by authorizing the plaintiff to seal the holes at the defendant’s cost, if the defendant failed to do so. The High Court stated that the smoke and fumes that materially interfered with ordinary comfort were enough to constitute an actionable nuisance and that actual injury to health need not to be proved. The court also observed that the existence of other sources of discomfort in the neighbourhood were no defence, provided that the source complained of materially added to the …show more content…
A common law action for negligence may be brought to prevent environmental pollution. Negligence is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand in any given situation. The judgment in Heaven v. Pender , was reiterated in Donoghue v. Stevenson , where Lord Atkin propounded the principle, and held that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee, to be likely to cause physical injury to person or property. However, the degree of care differs from case to case and circumstances to circumstances.
The degree of care as observed by the Supreme Court in the context of hazardous industries: “We cannot possibly adopt a policy of not having any chemical or hazardous industries merely because they pose hazard or risk to the community. If such a policy were adopted, it would mean the end of all progress and development. Such industries even if hazardous have to be set up since they are essential for economic development and advancement of well being of the people. We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary steps for locating such industries in a manner which would pose least risk of damage to the community and maximizing safety requirements in such industries.” The rule that a man is held to the exercise of the degree of care, which an ordinary prudent man would exercise in the same situation, is

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Argument Against Cardoza

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The person who did the wrongdoing should be liable for the proximate results of his actions. To put it more simply, Andrews felt that negligence was a relative concept. Generally, he was of the belief that everyone had the duty to not commit acts that may result in harming others. To summarize, both Cardozo and Andrews examined the duty of care in reference to negligence. To Cardozo, in order for there to be a duty to care, there had to be connection between the Defendant, the Railroad Company, and the harm that was caused to the plaintiff, Palsgraf.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Tichenor Case Summary

    • 965 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In Tichenor, the court found substantial harm. Id. at 178. In Tichenor, the plaintiff’s were unable to perform yard work, plant flowers or enjoy their porch because of the volume of the dogs’ barks. Id. at 175. The court reasoned the volume of the noise was more than a slight inconvenience because a normal person should be able to use their property at will without being interrupted by a neighbor.…

    • 965 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To the courts, it was evident that this principle was widely criticized and failed to work as the definition of inherently dangerous was so subjective and vague. Thus in the MacPherson case, Justice Cardozo scrapped the inherently dangerous policy and replaced it with the foreseeable negligence clause. The Brown decision, Strauss responds has similar parallels and thus is not a never before seen overstepping of judicial power. In the Brown case, we observe a civil rights legal…

    • 920 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Discussion: A court will likely conclude that the condition that our client maintains on her property is a natural condition and therefore does not constitute an attractive nuisance. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a possessor of land is subjected to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land. Norton v. Black. A possessor of land is not subjected to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon cause by a natural condition upon the land.…

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Tort Law Research Paper

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This paper gives a short introduction of tort law and mainly focus on the standard of care, how the courts determining what is the ‘reasonable person’ and whether there are some exceptions to the courts. The law of tort is the law of civil liability for wrongfully injury which provides remedies to individuals harmed by the wrongful conduct of others in order to protect an individual’s private rights. There are two major categories of torts: intentional tort and negligent tort. The general principle of negligence is concerned with compensating people who have injured or damaged and thus a defendant will be negligent if he or she falling below the standard of the ordinary reasonable man in the same situation. A person will be liable for their…

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Since bodies of water present a risk of harm that is readily apparent to all, along with the fact that the banks Joel fell into were made of natural conditions, the Thornton Quarry will not satisfy an artificial condition upon the land. Joel Cruz fell into Thornton Quarry, an area filled by rainwater and with earth banks made of limestone and shale. The was being used as a reservoir, “[B]odies of water . . .…

    • 878 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Nuisance can be separated into private, public and statutory nuisance. Private nuisance is “ the unreasonable use of man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour (Miller v. Jackson [1977] QB 966 (CA); 3 All ER 338) and can only be claimed by the individual affected that has an interest in the land . The potential defendants can be the creators of the nuisance, regardless of whether they are also the occupiers of the property .…

    • 1023 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Possession Injustice

    • 416 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The court will probably find that Bill and Sandie’s possession of the Green was “open and notorious.” This is one of the five elements of adverse possession. Possession is “open and notorious” when the adverse claimant’s use of the property can be observed, by another, through the erection of a structure or participation in activities that can be seen. Appalachian Regional Healthcare. Inc. v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., 824 S.W.2d 878 (Ky. 1992); Kentucky WCTU v. Thomas, 412 S.W.2d 869 (Ky. 1967); Elsea v. Day, 448 S.W.3d 259 (Ky. App. 2014).…

    • 416 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Issue: Tenants are losing their properties without being notified and heard in Chronic Nuisance Ordinance jurisdictions. They are losing their property and liberty interest, whiles people in similar situations that are not under the CNO are not. Rule: Due Process/ Mathews test/ Additional safeguards - “due process requires that, when a State seeks to terminate an interest . . .…

    • 294 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The National Animal Defense Council believes that vibrations it alleges are too faint for humans to perceive, and as a result went undetected by humans or dogs for fifteen years, merits severely impeding Cambridge Biopharma’s ability to produce a lifesaving cancer drug. This is despite the fact the adoption center and kennel owned and operated by Middlesex Animal Shelter remains open, the building is intact, and the dogs continue to be adopted. Therefore, Cambridge Biopharma asks the court to dismiss the National Animal Defense Council’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    After being assigned to draft a memorandum for your review regarding Myra’s accident. Enclosed below are the four elements regarding the negligence claims, and the potential defenses we may have against Myra’s Claim? There are four elements to the negligence cause of action: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages or injury. A defendant is owed a duty of care to all foreseeable persons who may foreseeably be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would under the circumstances.…

    • 828 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One of the biggest issues that may come from noise pollution is depression. This may happen, because if one is sleep deprived, stressed, or tired, as a result of noise pollution, this may lead to unusual behaviour, which will lead to depression, whether it is in the close future or not. Sleep disturbances: Noise pollution will certainly hamper you sleeping patterns, if not taken care of within proper timing. Loss of sleep may lead to certain behaviours, such as irritation and aggressiveness. If your sleeping pattern is changed too quickly, and not changed back within a reasonably quick time, this may lead you to further consequences, such as: depression, unnecessary stress, and many other symptoms.…

    • 790 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In addition loud music, people talking, and television. It effects on hearing and give headache, sleeping disorder and migration. As we need to lower the voices, using board and form at the house wall, wearing ear protector. These all can help to prevent the loud and ungrateful noises. In my opinion environmental pollution is the serious problem but with the help of people we can stop it.…

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Noise Pollution In Humans

    • 1224 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Others include sound systems loud speakers and TVs and ear phones. Another example may be your neighbor’s dog barking at night [3]. (ii) Social events: Worship Places, night clubs and gigs, parties and other social events also produces a lot of noise for the people stays in that area. whey these events are not often, they can be called 'Nuisance' rather than noise pollution [3]. (iii) Commercial and industrial…

    • 1224 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    M. C Mehta v. Union of India Case brief Facts 1. On December 4, 1985 a major leakage of oleum gas took place from the chlorine plant in sriram food fertilizers which adversely affected various employees of the organization as well as the nearby residents of the locality. On December 6, 1985 another minor oleum gas leakage took place from the joints of the pipe in the plant. The Delhi administration ordered sriram to stop the manufacturing of the hazardous gases and chemicals.…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays