AREA: Nuisance
FACTS:
The defendants ran a quarry and employed a blasting method that produced a lot of dust, noise, and vibrations that made it difficult for many people in the region to enjoy the land. To stop the public nuisance from continuing, the claimants requested an injunction. The defendants contended that the actions taken were, in reality, a private nuisance that only affected those who lived nearby, and as such, they were not subject to the injunction that prohibited "public nuisances."
ISSUES:
A public or private nuisance resulted from the defendant's actions?
What characteristic sets a private nuisance apart from a public one?
When did a private nuisance turn into a public nuisance?
JUDGMENT:
The injunction could be issued to stop the blasting activity because it had the potential to cause a public nuisance. Although it was challenging to distinguish between a public and a private nuisance, one could consider a nuisance to be public if it significantly harmed a class of Her Majesty's subjects' reasonable comfort or convenience. The definition of a "class" of individuals in a neighborhood varies depending on the specific circumstances of each instance, and it is impossible to pinpoint the exact number of people who must participate in order for a group of people to be classified as a "class." Furthermore, not every member of the class needs to be directly impacted by the annoyance; only a representative sample of them need to be. Because a public nuisance affects so many people, it is not realistic to expect one person to take legal action to stop it on their own. Rather, it was the collective obligation of the community, which is exactly what had happened in this instance. Consequently, the injunction was approved.
Comments