Topic: Public nuisance and distinction between public nuisance and private nuisanceLaw of Tort

Name: RISHABH MISHRASemester I - B.A./LLB Hons.Roll. Number: 2014091

Damodaram Sanjivyya National Law University,Visakhapatnam

November,2014

Acknowledgement

I would like to show sincere gratitude to all academic and administrative staff of DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY and Mr.Vishwachandra Nath sir in particular who extended their help in completion of project work. This topic, which has enhanced my knowledge due to the extensive research required.

Secondly I would also like to thank my friends who helped me a lot in finishing this project within the stipulated time.

Contents Abstract Introduction Concept of nuisance Historical meaning Public nuisance When public nuisance converted into private nuisance? Public nuisance cases Private nuisance Distinction between public nuisance and private nuisance Conclusion Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The word nuisance has been derived from the French word nuire and Latin word nocere which in its legal sense means annoyance or harm; and indeed the element of unlawful annoyance is the only thing common to all nuisances. Law of nuisance attempts to preserve a balance between conflicting interests where one thinks that he should use his land in a manner in which he likes and on the other hand, his neighbor wants that he should have a quiet enjoyment of his land. There is no controversy in the modern world that everyone must endure some degree of noise, dust, smell, smoke, vibration, the escape of effluent etc. from his neighbor- otherwise the modern life would be impossible. Nuisance is of two kind 1. Public or common nuisance 2. Private nuisance, or tort of nuisance . Public nuisance is a crime whereas private nuisance is a civil wrong. Public nuisance interference with the right of public in general and is punishable as an offence. For ex. Obstructing a public way by digging a trench , or constructing structures on it. Private nuisance is a civil wrong that affects a single individual or a definite number of persons in the enjoyment of some private right which is not common to the public. In other words, a private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the private use and enjoyment of ones land. Examples include interference with the physical condition of the land, disturbing the comfort of its occupants, or threatening future injury or disturbance. The origin of private nuisance liability is purely tortious in character and not criminalIt is to be noted that a private nuisance exists only where one is injured in relation to a right that s/he enjoys by reason of his/her ownership of an interest in land. Private nuisance includes all injuries to an owner or occupier in the enjoyment of the property of which s/he is in possession, without regard to the quality of the tenure. However, a nuisance may be a public and a private one at the same time.Concept of nuisance What is meant by nuisance?Nuisance has been definf to be anything done to hurt or annoyance of the land, tenements or hereditaments of another, and not amounting to a trespass. The word nuisance is derived from the French word nuire, to do hurt, or to annoy. Blackstone described nuisance (nocumentum) as something that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage.A nuisance may be caused by negligence, and there may be case in which the same act or omission will support an action of either kind, but generally speaking. These two classes of action are distinct, and the evidence necessary to support them is different. Nuisance is no branch of the law of negligence, and it is no defense that all reasonable care to prevent it is taken.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the law of nuisance became difficult to administer, as competing property uses often posed a nuisance to each other, and the cost of litigation to settle the issue grew prohibitive. As such, most jurisdictions now have a system of land use planning(e.g.zoning) that describes what activities are acceptable in a given location. Zoning generally overrules nuisance. For example: if a factory is operating in an industrial zone, neighbours in the neighbouring residential zone can't make a claim in nuisance. Jurisdictions without zoning laws essentially leave land use to be determined by the laws concerning nuisance.Similarly, modern environmental laws are an adaptation of the doctrine of nuisance to modern complex societies, in that a person's use of his property may harmfully affect another's property, or person, far from the nuisance activity, and from causes not easily integrated into historic understandings of nuisance law.HISTORICAL MEANING: The meanings of the term nuisance has taken many different forms over the years and were often very vague in its definition. In general, the term is characterized by a simple annoyance or hurt caused by some person or thing. Historically, nuisance referred to the denial of someones rights to use land. In the thirteenth century, the writ of nuisance was available to plaintiffs to take action against those injuries which were committed wholly on the land of the defendant, but interfered with the rights of the plaintiff. This was the beginnings of the modern day private nuisance. An extension of private nuisance eventually gave rise to public nuisance as well. Any interference on the rights of the public, or the rights of the crown, was considered to be a crime. These crimes first developed from wrongdoings on the property of a public highway, or other public property. Because of the similarity between crimes against private property and public property, these wrong doings were also labeled as nuisances. The term became so widely used that it began to describe all types of crime against the crown or against private citizens. A private nuisance is primarily based on a civil wrong in which the rights of a private individual, in which a wrongdoing has interfered with the plaintiff's land. A public nuisance refers instead to a crime which affects the rights of the public at large. It is a very broad term that encompasses many different offenses. A public and private nuisance actually has very little comparison, except in name. The nature of the offenses is actually very different, but they both include some kind of interference by the wrongdoer that disturbs the plaintiff, or the public. In order for a defendant to be guilty of a private nuisance, he must have substantially interfered with the right of a plaintiff's enjoyment of land. A public nuisance must affect the community in general. Absolute nuisances are nuisances for which the defendant is strictly liable. Certain activities are so sure to cause a nuisance that they are labeled this way. Setting off fireworks in public, storing flammable substances on one's property, or even such things as extremely bad odors, will qualify as absolute nuisances. Public nuisance:Nuisance is divided into public and private, although it is quite possible for the same conduct to both. A public nuisance is a crime, while a private nuisance is only a tort. a public nuisance or common nuisance is one which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of the public who come within the sphere or neighborhood of its operation, the question whether the number of persons affected is sufficient to constitute a class is one of fact in every case, and it is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of that class has been so affected for an injunction to issue. The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes thatthreatenthehealth,morals,safety,comfort,convenience,orwelfareof a community. Violators may be punishable by a crime sentence, a fine or both. Adefendantmayalsoberequiredtoremoveanuisance or to pay the cost of removal. For example, a manufacturer who has pollutes a stream might be fined and might also be order to pay costofcleanup.Publicnuisancesmayinterferewithpublichealth,suchasinthekeepingofdiseasedanimalsoramalarialpond.Public safety nuisancesincludeshootingfireworksinthestreets,storingexplosives,practicingmedicine withoutalicense,orharboringaviciousdog.Housesofprostitution,illegalliquor establishments, gaming houses,andunlicensedprizefightsareexamplesofnuisancesthat interferewithpublicmorals.Obstructingahighwayorcreatingacondition to maketravelunsafeorhighlydisagreeableareexamplesof nuisance threatening the public convenience.

When public nuisance converted into private nuisance? In certain cases, when any person suffers some special or particular damages, different from what is inflicted upon public as a whole, a civil right of action is available to the person injured. What is otherwise a public nuisance also becomes a private nuisance so far as the person suffering special damage is concerned. The expression special damage in this context means damage caused to a party in contradiction to the public at large. For example, digging trench on a public highway may cause inconvenience to the public at large. No member of the public, who is thus, obstructed or has to take a diversion along with others, can sue under civil law. But if anyone of them suffering suffers more damages than suffered by the public at large, e.g., is severely injured by falling into the trench, he can sue in tort. In order to sustain a civil action in respect of a public nuisance, proof of special and particular damage is essential. Pollutionofarivermightconstitutebothapublicandaprivatenuisance.Thisisknownasa mixed nuisance.

The proof of special damage entitles the plaintiff to bring civil action for what may be otherwise a public nuisance. Thus, if the standing of horses and wagons for an unreasonably long time outside a mans hose creates darkness and bad smell for the occupants of the house and also obstructs the access of customers into it, the damage is particular, direct and substantial and entitles the occupier to maintain an action. A person is guilty of public nuisance who does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or there people in general who dwell or occupy property I the vicinity or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger, or annoyance to person who may have occasion to use any public right. Sec.268 I.P.C.

Public nuisance cases Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. BabulalCampbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911]Rose v Miles [1815]Noble v Harrison [1926] Griffiths v Liverpool Corporation [1974]Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264

Cases in detailDr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, the defendant created a brick grinding machine adjoining the premises of the plaintiff, who was a medical practitioner. The brick grinding machine generated dust, which polluted the atmosphere. The dust entered the consulting chamber of the plaintiff and accused physical inconvenience to him and patients, and their red coating on clothes, caused by the dust, plaintiff had been proved and a permanent injunction was issued against the defendant restraining him from running his brick grinding machine there.

Rose v Miles [1815], the defendant wrongfully moored his barge across a public navigable creck. This blocked the way for plaintiffs barges and the plaintiff had to incur considerable expenditure in unloading the cargo and transporting the same by land. It was held that there were special damages caused to plaintiff to support his claim.Campbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911], the plaintiff was the owner of a building in London. The funeral procession of King Edward VII was to pass from highway just in front of the plaintiffs building. An uninterrupted view of the procession could be had from the window of the plaintiffs building. The plaintiff accepted certain payments from certain person and permitted them to occupy seats in the first and second floor of her building. Before the date of the date of the said procession, the defendant corporation constructed a stand on the highway in front of the plaintiff building to enable the members of the Corporation and its guest to have a view of the procession. This structure now obstructed the view from the plaintiffs building. Because of the obstruction, the plaintiff was deprived of the profitable contract of letting seats in her building. She filed a suit against the corporation contending that the structure on the highway, which was a public nuisance, had caused special loss to her. It was held that she was entitled to claim compensation.

PRIVATE NUISANCE: A private nuisance is a civil wrong that affects a single individual or a definite number of persons in the enjoyment of some private right which is not common to the public.In other words, a private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with the private use and enjoyment of ones land. Examples include interference with the physical condition of the land, disturbing the comfort of its occupants, or threatening future injury or disturbance. The origin of private nuisance liability is purely tortious in character and not criminalIt is to be noted that a private nuisance exists only where one is injured in relation to a right that s/he enjoys by reason of his/her ownership of an interest in land. Private nuisance includes all injuries to an owner or occupier in the enjoyment of the property of which s/he is in possession, without regard to the quality of the tenure. However, a nuisance may be a public and a private one at the same time. Aprivatenuisanceisaninterferencewithaperson'senjoymentanduseofhisland.Thelawrecognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession ofland,havetherighttotheunimpaired conditionofthepropertyandtoreasonablecomfortandconvenienceinitsoccupation. Examplesofprivatenuisancesabound.Nuisancesthatinterferewiththephysicalconditionofthelandincludevibrationorblastingthatdamagesahouse;destructionofcrops;raisingofawatertable;orthepollutionofsoil,astream,oranundergroundwatersupply.Examplesofnuisancesinterferingwiththecomfort,convenience,orhealthofanoccupantarefoulodors,noxiousgases, smoke,dust,loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Morever, a nuisance may also disturbanoccupant'smentaltranquility,suchasaneighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and, has notactuallyoccurred. Anattractivenuisanceisadangerlikelytolurechildrenontoaperson'sland.Forexample,anindividualwhohasapoolonhisproperty has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children. Trespassissometimes confusedwithnuisance,butthetwoaredistinct.Atrespassactionprotectsagainstaninvasionofone'srightto exclusivepossessionofland.Ifalandownerdropsatreeacrossherneighbor'sboundarylineshehascommittedatrespass;ifherdog barksallnightkeepingtheneighborawake,shemaybeliablefornuisance.Essential ingredient:Unlawful interferencePrivate nuisance requires an unreasonable use of land by the defendantwhich leadsto an unreasonableinterferencewith the claimant's use or enjoyment of their own land.This requires a balancing exercise of competing rights often referred to as the principle of give and take. Unreasonable interference alone is insufficient:In assessing the reasonableness of the use and reasonableness of the interference, the courts take all the circumstances into account. In particular the courts will consider:1. The nature of the locality/neighbourhood1. Duration1. Sensitivity1. Malice

1.Locality/NeighbourhoodThe reasonableness of the use of land will be assessed with regard to the nature of thelocality in deciding whether there exists an actionable nuisance.2. DurationMost nuisances consist of acontinuingstate of affairs. In most instances the claimant is seeking an injunction to preventthe continuance of such nuisances.In general the longer the nuisance lasts the greater the interference and the greater the likelihood of it being held to be an unlawful interference.However,an activitywhich is temporary may constitute a nuisance.3. SensitivityIf the claimant isabnormally sensitive or their use of land is particularly sensitive, the defendant will not be liable unless the activity would have amounted to a nuisance to a reasonable person using the land in a normal manner. If, however, the claimant has established that the defendant has infringed their right to ordinary enjoyment of the land, they can also claim damages for any damage incurred to unusually sensitive property.4. MaliceWhere the defendant acts out of malice, the actions are more likely to be held unreasonable.

Interference with the use or enjoyment of land Interference may cause either: (1) injury to the property itself, or(2)injury to comfort or health of occupants of certain property.

(1) Injury to the propertyAn unauthorized interference with the use of the property of another person though some object, tangible or intangible, which cause damage to the property, is actionable as nuisance. It may be by allowing the branches of a tree to overhang on the land of another person, or the escape of the roots of the tree, water, gas, smoke or fumes etc. on the neighbors land or even by vibration.In St. Helens Smelting Co. v Tipping, fumes from the defendants company works damaged plaintiffs trees and shrubs. Such damage being an injury to property, it was held that the defendants were liable. The plea that locality was devoted towards of that kind was unsuccessful.i. Nuisance to incorporeal propertyInterference with the right of support of land and buildings : It may be noted that mere removal of the support or excavations in not actionable, substantial damage has got to be proved.Sec.34, Indian Easement Act, states that The removal of the means of support to which a dominant owner is entitled does not give rise to right to recover compensation, until and unless substantial damage is actually sustained.Right to support by grant or prescription: In respect to the buildings, the right of support may be acquired by grant or prescription.ii. Interference with the right to light and airThe right to air and light may be acquired by an easement provided certain conditions to be fulfilled. If they are:Peaceably enjoyed; as an easement; as of right; without interruption; and for 20 years.

When there is substantial infringement of an easement of light and air, the same is actionable by an action for damages according to sec.33 of the Indian Easements Act, which mentions what is substantial infringement of an easement and the principles are the same as stated in the case of Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd.

Explanation-I : the doing of any act likely to injure the plaintiff by affecting the evidence of the easement, or by materially diminishing the value of the heritage, is substantial damage within the meaning of the section.

Explanation-II : where the easement disturbed is the right to the free passage of light passing to the openings in a house, no damage is substantial within the meaning of this section, unless it falls within the first explanation, or interferes materially with the physical comfort of the plaintiff, or prevents him from carrying on his accustomed business in the dominant heritage as beneficially as he had done previous to instituting the suit.Explanation-III : where the easement disturbed is the right to the free passage of air to the opening in a house, damage is substantial within the meaning of this section if it interferes materially with the physical comfort of the plaintiff.

If a person has enjoyed some light for 20 years, he does not become entitled to get all the light. It is only when there is any appreciable diminution of light which has been enjoyed for 20 years that constitutes a right of action and gives to the proprietor of a tenement that had this enjoyment, a right to prevent his neighbors building on his own land.

(2) Injury to comfort or health Substantial interference with the comfort and convenience in using the premises is actionable as a nuisance. A mere trifling or fanciful inconvenience is not enough. The rule is De minimis non curat lex ,that means the law does not take account of very trifling matters.

Disturbance to neighbours throughout the night by the noises of horses in a building which was converted into a stable was a nuisance.(3) Damage Unlike trespass, which is actionable per se, actual damage is required to be proved in an action for nuisance. In the case of public nuisance, the plaintiff can bring an action in tort only when he proves a special damage to him. In private nuisance, although damage is one of the essentials, the law will often presume it.LegalResponsibility: Aprivatenuisanceisatort,thatis,acivilwrong.Todetermineaccountabilityforanallegednuisance,acourtwillexaminethreefactors:1. The defendant'sfault.1. Whethertherehasbeenasubstantialinterferencewiththeplaintiff'sinterest,and1. Thereasonablenessofthedefendant's conduct.

Faultmeansthatthedefendantintentionally,negligently,orrecklesslyinterferedwiththeplaintiff'suseandenjoymentofthelandor that the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actualharmorsubstantialriskoffutureharmtotheplaintiff'sinterest.For example, a defendant whocontinuestospraychemicalsintotheairafterlearningthattheyareblowingontotheplaintiff'slandisdeemedto be intending that result. Where it is alleged that a defendant has violated astatute,provingtheelementsofthestatutewillestablishfault. Substantial Interffence the law isnotintendedtoremedytriflesorredresspettyannoyances.Toestablishliabilityunderanuisance theory, interferencewiththeplaintiff'sinterestmustbesubstantial. Determining substantial interferenceincaseswherethephysical condition thepropertyisaffectedwilloftenbefairly straightforward.Morechallengingarethosecasespredicatedonpersonalinconvenience,discomfort,orannoyance.Todeterminewhetherinterferenceissubstantial,courtsapplythestandardofanordinarymemberofthecommunitywithnormalsensitivityandtemperament.Aplaintiffcannot,byputtinghisorherlandtoanunusuallysensitiveuse,makeanuisanceoutofthedefendant'sconductthatwouldotherwiseberelativelyharmless. ReasonablenessofDefendant'sConduct Iftheinterferencewiththeplaintiff'sinterestissubstantial,adeterminationmustthenbemadethatitisunreasonablefortheplaintifftobearitortobearitwithoutcompensation.ThisisaBalancingprocessweighingtherespectiveinterestsofbothparties.Thelawrecognizesthattheactivitiesofothersmustbeaccommodatedtoacertainextent,particularlyinmattersofindustry,commerce,ortrade.Thenatureandgravityoftheharmisbalancedagainsttheburdenofpreventingtheharmandtheusefulness oftheconduct.

FACTORS THAT LEAD TO PRIVATE NUISANCE: Whether or not an act is a nuisance depends upon the unique facts and circumstances of your individual case. Relevant factors include:1. the population and location of your neighborhood1. the prior use of the land (in other words, what it has been used for historically)1. whether or not you have come to the nuisance (meaning that you moved to a location where the alleged nuisance condition has been ongoing for years)1. whether the nuisance is permanent or occasional1. the number of people harmed, and 1. the degree of the harmPrivate nuisance is essentially a land based tort. In order to bring a claim in private nuisance, a claimant must have an interest in the land in which he asserts his enjoyment or use has been unreasonably interfered with.Case laws:1. Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KB 1411. Dr, Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal 1. Sturges v Bridgman1. Health v. Mayor of Brighton1. St. Helens Smelting Co. v. Tipping1. Hunter v Canary Wharf:1. Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727 1. bury v Pope (1587) Cro Eliz 118 1. Tate & Lyle v GLC [1983] 2 AC 509 1. Thomas v National Union of Miners [1985] 1. Jones v Portsmouth City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1723Dr, Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal:- the defendant created a brick grinding machine adjoining the premises of the plaintiff, who was a medical practioner. The brick grinding machine generated dust, which polluted the atmosphere. The dust entered the consulting chamber of the plaintiff and caused physical inconvenience to him and patients, and their red coating on clothes, caused by the dust, could be apparently visible. It was held that a special to the plaintiff had been proved and a permanent injuction was issued against the defendant restraining him from running his brick grinding machine there.Sturges v Bridgman:- A doctor moved next door to a confectioner, who had produced sweets for sale in his kitchen for many years. The doctor constructed a small shed for the purpose of private practice. He built the shed on the boundary. However, the loud noises from the confectioner's industrial mortars and pestles could be clearly heard, disrupting his use and enjoyment of his land. He sought an injunction. The facts were described by the Siger LJ in the Court of Appeal as follows,The Defendant in this case is the occupier, for the purpose of his business as a confectioner, of a house in Wigmore Street. In the rear of the house is a kitchen, and in that kitchen there are now, and have been for over twenty years, two large mortars in which the meat and other materials of the confectionery are pounded. The Plaintiff, who is a physician, is the occupier of a house in Wimpole Street, which until recently had a garden at the rear, the wall of which garden was a party-wall between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants premises, and formed the back wall of the Defendants kitchen. The Plaintiff has, however, recently built upon the site of the garden a consulting-room, one of the side walls of which is the wall just described. It has been proved that in the case of the mortars, before and at the time of action brought, a noise was caused which seriously inconvenienced the Plaintiff in the use of his consulting-room, and which, unless the Defendant had acquired a right to impose the inconvenience, would constitute an actionable nuisance. The Defendant contends that he had acquired the right, either at common Law or under the Prescription Act, by uninterrupted user for more than twenty years.The Court of Appeal held that the fact the doctor had "come to the nuisance", by which the Judge meant moved to an area where the nuisance had been operating for years without harming anyone, was no defence. The doctor's legal right to have the nuisance stopped was not lessened by the confectioner's longstanding practice.Health v. Mayor of Brighton, the court refused to grant injunction in favour of the incumbent and trustees of a church to restrain a Buzzinf noise from the defendants power station. It was found in the case that the noise did not cause annoyance to any other person but the incumbent, nor was the noise such as could distract the attention of ordinary persons attending the church.In St. Helens Smelting Co. v. Tipping, fumes from the defendant companys works damaged being an injury to property, it was held that the defendants were liable . the plea that locality was devoted to works of that kind was unsuccessful.Defences to private nuisanceThere are certain special defence which can be used by the defendant while defending his case. There are two main defences which are valid:

I Statutory Authority

This defence is used by statutory authorities when they are sued for creating nuisance. This defence is even valid when a reasonable man is disturbed by unreasonable interference. For example if a railway line work is going on and people residing near that area are greatly disturbed by the noise they cannot claim for nuisance. Same is the case for people residing near a power station.

II Prescriptive right or acquired rightThis simply means that right acquired due to long usage. If the plaintiff has not objected to any unreasonable interference for a very long period then the defendant gets this right. The time period is 20 years. For example if your neighbour gives music lessons at 5 in the morning and you do not object to it for 20 years then from the 21st year he gets this right to continue this practice.

Apart from these defences the court also orders for abatement of nuisance which is another important remedy the court provides apart from damages.

However there are certain points which cannot be used as defence. These points are:

(I) Defendant cannot say that the nuisance is caused with assistance from others. Thus plaintiff cannot claim that other people assisted him to cause nuisance.

(II) Defendant cannot claim that his act was done for public good. You cannot claim that giving music lessons at four in the morning is for public good.

(III) This is the most crucial thing which the defendant cannot use as a defence. Plaintiff put himself in a position of nuisance. The simplest example is if a person buys a new house and neighbour cause nuisance by making noise then the neighbour cannot claim that plaintiff put himself in a position of nuisance by buying house besides him.

(IV) Defendant cannot claim that Reasonable Care was taken him. The simplest point is that if reasonable care was taken then nuisance would not have been committed.

The distinction between public and private nuisance

In some instances, the same set of facts can produce liability in both kinds of nuisance, although the two typesof nuisance are very much distinct. Private nuisance is concerned with protecting the rights of an occupier in respectof unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of his land. The parties to an action in private nuisance are generallyneighborsin the popular sense of the word and the courts undertake a balancing exercise between the competing rights of land owner to use his land as he chooses and the right of the neighbor not to have his use or enjoyment of land interfered with. Public nuisance is a crime but becomes actionable in tort law if the claimant suffers 'particular damage' over and above the damage suffered by the public generally.The major difference between the two is the scope of harm that is done and the number of people to whom the harm is done.A private nuisance is one that is felt by a single person or perhaps a single family. By contrast, a public nuisance is one whose impact is felt by a large number of people.Some possible examples of private nuisance:1. Your dog using my yard as its toilet1. My tree dropping rotten fruit in your yardSome possible examples of public nuisance:1. A bar playing loud music late at night near to private homes1. A business that dumps its trash in the empty lot out back, attracting rodents and flies and endangering public health1. A run-down motel that is used mainly by drug dealers and prostitutesIn general, the remedy for private nuisance is a suit brought by the offended private citizen. The remedy for a public nuisance is sought by the affected government.Public nuisance affects the public while a private nuisance is one that affects an individual or a family. For instance, if a farmer failed to properly disposed of a significant amount of manure, or atleast cover up its smells, and neighbors and an adjacent neighborhood could not avoid the odors, it would constitute a public nuisance. If there was one family immediatelyadjacent to that property, yet it could be smelled beyond that immediate family it would constitute a private nuisance since it is only affecting the family adjacent to that family.Since there are not neighbors around it would then be considered a private nuisance.On the other hand, public nuisance constitutes an interference with a right common to a community or a significant segment thereof. Often, public nuisance is viewed as an aspect of criminal law, though in the occasional case, it can be dealt with in tortious terms. While a private nuisance claim can be based on the claim of one or several individuals, a public nuisance can include any number of plaintiffs. Thus, throughout this article, the term nuisance will indicate private nuisance, unless otherwise specified.Over-all, the courts prefer to award money damages in order to a resolve a dispute. This is due to the fact that, so long as both parties are using their land in a lawful manner, the courts are reluctant to curtail or halt this use and enjoyment. Still, recognizing the infeasibility of this solution in many such conflicts, the remedy of injunction is frequently the sole feasible option. An injunction is granted by a court when it finds it appropriate to require a defendant to do, or refrain from engaging in an activity which interferes, to a substantial degree, with a plaintiffs reasonable use and enjoyment of his land.There are two types of injunction, temporary and permanent. A court might set forth an order temporarily forcing the defendant in a nuisance claim from pursuing the activity in question. This might be done in order to quell the adversarial turbulence until a more concrete decision is reached. Ideally, this can be done via an out of court settlement between the two parties, perhaps with the aid of an arbitrator or mediator. If not, the claim will need to be re-evaluated by a higher court. Thus, a temporary injunction may be seen as a bandage or tourniquet on a hemorrhage, a measure used until more effective measures can be implemented.ConclusionThe distinction between public and private nuisance is so important for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it determines whether or not you have standing (i.e., the right to sue).An individual does not have standing to sue for a public nuisance, unless an exception applies. The principal exception is if you are harmed in a manner that is different in kind from the harm suffered by the public at large (i.e., you have a special injury).Furthermore, a private nuisance is a civil wrong, meaning thatdamagesare the appropriate remedy for those who have been harmed. On the other hand, a public nuisance is sometimes classified as a criminal offense, and itmay beremedied by civil or criminal penalties, but it usually takes a city attorney or another public official (as opposed to a private citizen)to initiate an action over a public nuisance.Bibliography Web source: http://legalcontent.in/tort-of-law-in-india/203/http://nuisances.uslegal.com/types-of-nuisances/private-nuisances/http://nuisances.uslegal.com/types-of-nuisances/private-nuisances/ttp://www.prepsure.com/news/upsc-civil-services-main-exam-2013-question-papers-...http://notes-law.blogspot.com/2008/08/law-on-torts-part-2.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisancehttp://www.lawyersnjurists.com/articles-reports-journals/law-and-ethics/discuss-...http://nuisances.uslegal.com/types-of-nuisances/private-nuisances/http://www.indiankanoon.com/doc/1294636/manupatra.com/roundup/326/Articles/Plea%20bargaini...www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article73....Books referred:Law of Tort, R. K. BangiaTort, Winfield and Jolowicz, 18th edition, W.V.H. Rogeres