Introduction
In an action for nuisance, the defendant may try to avoid liability by raising certain legal defences. Some of these defences are recognized by courts as valid, while others are rejected. Understanding these defences is important to determine when a person will or will not be liable for nuisance.
Meaning / Definition
Defences for nuisance are legal reasons that a defendant may use to justify or excuse conduct that would otherwise amount to nuisance. If the defence is valid, the defendant will not be held liable. If the defence is not accepted by law, the defendant remains liable.
Modes or Types
Valid (Effectual) Defences
Prescriptive Right to Commit Nuisance
A person may acquire a legal right to continue an activity that would otherwise be a nuisance if it has been carried on openly and continuously for 20 years.
Under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if a nuisance has been enjoyed as a right, openly and peacefully, without interruption for 20 years, it becomes legal by prescription (long continuous use recognized by law).
After the completion of this period, the activity is treated as if it had been legally permitted from the beginning.
Statutory Authority
An act done under the authority of a statute (law passed by the legislature) is a complete defence to nuisance.
If the nuisance is an unavoidable result of carrying out an activity authorized by law, the person performing that activity will not be liable.
For example, a railway company authorized by statute to run trains may cause noise, vibration, or sparks. If these effects are unavoidable and the company has acted carefully, it will not be liable.
However, if the nuisance is caused due to negligence, the defence of statutory authority will not apply.
Invalid (Ineffectual) Defences
Nuisance Due to Acts of Others
Sometimes nuisance is caused by the combined acts of several people acting independently. Even if the defendant’s act alone might not have caused nuisance, it is not a defence to say that the nuisance occurred only because others also acted in the same way.
Each person who contributes to the nuisance can be held liable.
Public Good
It is not a valid defence to argue that the activity causing nuisance is beneficial to the public.
Even if an activity serves the public, it cannot justify unlawful interference with the rights of individuals.
Reasonable Care
Taking reasonable care to prevent nuisance is generally not a defence.
If the activity still causes substantial interference with another person's property or comfort, the defendant may still be held liable even if precautions were taken.
Plaintiff Coming to the Nuisance
It is not a defence to argue that the plaintiff moved to the area where the nuisance already existed.
A person is free to purchase or occupy property even if a nuisance already exists there. The defendant cannot escape liability simply because the plaintiff came later.
Important Case Law
Sturges v. Bridgman
The court recognized that a prescriptive right to commit nuisance can arise when the activity has continued openly for 20 years without interruption.
Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Co.
A railway company was not held liable when sparks from a train engine set fire to nearby property because the activity was authorized by statute and carried out with due care.
Smith v. London and South Western Railway Co.
The court held that even when statutory authority exists, the defendant may still be liable if negligence is involved.
Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co.
The defendants argued that their power station was beneficial to the public. The court rejected this defence and granted an injunction because the vibrations caused damage to the plaintiff’s house.
Rapier v. London Tramways Co.
A stable housing many horses produced a strong smell that amounted to nuisance. The defence that reasonable care had been taken was rejected.
Sturges v. Bridgman
The court also held that it is not a defence that the plaintiff came to the nuisance.
Distinction / Comparison
| Basis | Valid Defences | Invalid Defences |
|---|---|---|
| Legal acceptance | Recognized by courts | Not recognized by courts |
| Effect on liability | Defendant avoids liability | Defendant remains liable |
| Examples | Prescription, statutory authority | Public benefit, reasonable care |
Practical Example
A railway company runs trains under statutory authority. The trains create noise and vibrations that disturb nearby residents. If the railway operates carefully and the nuisance is unavoidable due to the authorized activity, the company may rely on statutory authority as a defence.
However, if the disturbance occurs because the railway operates negligently, the defence will fail.
Summary
- Defences in nuisance determine whether the defendant will be liable.
- Valid defences include prescriptive right (20 years continuous use) and statutory authority.
- A statutory defence does not apply if the nuisance is caused by negligence.
- Certain arguments are not valid defences.
- Public benefit, reasonable care, acts of others, and the plaintiff coming to the nuisance are generally not accepted as defences.
- Courts focus on protecting individual property rights from unreasonable interference.