1. That the nuisance is materials
2. That the nuisance is interfering with the ordinary comfort of causing inconvenience.
The following case portrays the element of interference in public nuisance: in the case of Vanderpant V Mayfair Hotel Co. Ltd (1929) ALLER 296.
This was a case where the defendant hotel operated opposite the plaintiffs house. The plaintiff used for public nuisance and for an injunction to stop the defendant hotel from obstructing the highway and access to his premise, and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the
comfort of his house by noise arising from his hotel, in the form of shouting, loud talking, in handling of kitchen, or domestic utensils, milk chuns and other articles. The court held:
That the plaintiff could maintain action for public nuisance having proved particular damage which were direct and substantial.
Also in the case of Tarry V Ashton (1876) I QBD 314. In that case the defendant an owner of house abutting on a public road, erected a protruding lamp over hanging the highway.
The court Held: that the plaintiff could sue for negligence, public nuisance and damages, and the defendant was liable.
The above authorities portrays nuisance as interfering no matter how little the interference is /are.
Related Posts: LAW
Be the first to comment