Law: the Tort of nuisance?

Question

could someone please explain the difference between public and private nuisance. I am doing an essay about a pollution event and have to argue the case in reference to private and public nuisance, however i'm not sure what the difference is. Any help would be appretiated.

P.S. this is English law

Answer 1

A public or common nuisance is an inconvenience or irritant which affects the community at large, as opposed to a private individual. For a nuisance to be termed a public nuisance, there must be a sufficiently large number of persons suffering from it as to be termed a class of society. While it is difficult to define what degree of annoyance is necessary to constitute a nuisance, in relation to offensive trades, it seems that when the noise, stench or disturbance caused by such a trade permeates the neighbourhood to such a degree as to make life unpleasant for the neighbourhood, it might be termed a public nuisance.

A thing may be a nuisance in one place, which-is not so in another; therefore the situation or locality of the nuisance must be considered. What's termed a nuisance in Belgravia is not does not necessarily constitute one in Bermondsey.

A private nuisance is one which affects the enjoyment of another person's property. Such nuisances could include keeping pigs in your back garden so that your neighbour has to put up with the grunts and the smell; having a rat infested compost heap; building a high wall on your property such as to obstruct your neighbour's easement of light; holding noisy parties every weekend so that the neighbours can't sleep.

There has to be a certain amount of give and take, live and let live when considering what constitutes a nuisance. My favourite quotation here is from the Middle Ages when Norman French was the language of the courts: "si homme est si tendernosed que ne peut endurer sea cole, il doit laisser sa mise."

Answer 2

I have a little time now, so thought I might pretty much do it for you.

Private nuisance can be defined as the unlawful interference with another's use or enjoyment of their land; or indirect damge to his land/the things on his land - this includes smells (see Bone v Seale (1976)) and noise (see Sturges V Bridgman (1879)). Only an owner of land or their tenant can bring an action in private nuisance (Malone v Laskey (1907)). The person(s) to be sued will be the creator of the nuisance, anyone authorising the nuisance or anyone adopting the nuisance. Remedies for private nuisance are injunction (remember this is an equitable remedy and is at the courts discretion) and damages.
Defences to private nuisance would include statutory authority (i.e they had a right to create the nuisance by legal statute) and prescription (i.e where the nuisance has been allowed to continue for a long period).

Public Nuisance is defined as a nuisance so widespread that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to put a stop to it (definition from the case Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957)). Public nuisance, therfore affects the public in general. It is not only a tort, it is also a crime - action is taken by the Attorney General on behalf of the public. For an individual to succeed in a claim for public nuisance they must show they have sufferred special and peculiar damage over and above the rest of the public.


That's basically it.

On another point though as your essay involves pollution, I thought it may be worth asking if you have considered the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. This is handy where the pollution has escaped the land of one to the detriment of the neighbour. Will check back tomorrow so if there are any further questions just post in additional details.

Answer 3

short answer: Your dad is inaccurate concerning the reason for action and the specifics of what could take place if somebody is harm. That being mentioned, he's suitable that trampolines are criminal duty magnets and would reason his coverage costs to pass up or would reason some criminal problems sooner or later. long answer: Your dad is somewhat perplexed yet usually good. "Nuisance" is a tort (civil reason for action), yet deals with something distinctive (nuisance fits contain issues which deprive people of their rights to delight of their assets or public rights. as an occasion: barking canines, heavily polluting factories, and so on). "proper nuisance" is probably what he ability. This tort enables mothers and dads to sue landowners each and every time a regularly occurring risk that's proper to infants (e.g. swimming holes) motives harm to their infants. That being mentioned, there are some entertainment use regulations that immunize landowners who enable (or do not restrict) others from pursuing entertainment activities on their land as long because of the fact the landowner grew to become into willfully or maliciously negligent. i'm uncertain the place he have been given the greenback fee and there are actually not any regulations that restrict coverage for criminal duty. i could circumvent a trampoline when you consider which you or certainly one of your individuals will only approximately regularly be harm.

Answer 4

Hi Stephen,

I just wanted to add to the point made by ligier regarding Rylands v Fletcher.

I think the Transco case did a lot to limit the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. See Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2004] 2 AC 1 (HL).

Answer 5

A private nuisance is asking your roommate to do your assignment. A public nuisance is asking complete strangers to do it.

Remember, some people (especially people you don't know) have the ability to write complete nonsense with absolute clarity without you knowing if they are telling the truth or not. Think about that.

Answer 6

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=difference+between+public+and+private+nuisance&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB