Law and You > Environmental Laws > Nuisance as Environmental Pollution Tort
The term environment refers to the surrounding conditions or influences in which an organism, system, or community exists and operates. It encompasses both natural and human-made aspects and can be understood at various scales, from the immediate surroundings of an individual (like a room or a neighbourhood) to the global level (like the entire Earth’s ecosystems). Environmental pollution refers to the introduction of harmful substances or agents into the environment, which can cause adverse effects on living organisms, ecosystems, and the overall health of the planet. Pollution disrupts natural processes and can lead to a decline in environmental quality, affecting air, water, soil, and other components of the environment. Let us discuss nuisance as environmental pollution tort.
Environmental pollution as a tort refers to the legal remedy available under tort law for individuals or communities who suffer harm due to pollution or environmental degradation caused by another party. A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or injury, for which the injured party can seek compensation or other legal remedies. In the context of environmental pollution, tort law helps protect individuals from unlawful or negligent actions that damage their environment and adversely affect their health, property, or livelihood.
Nuisance as Environmental Pollution Tort:
The word “nuisance” is derived from the French word “nuire”, which means “to do hurt, or to annoy”. Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over, or in connection with it. Nuisance is an injury to the right of a person in possession of a property to undisturbed enjoyment of it and results from improper use by another person in his property. Stephen defined nuisance to be “anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements of another, and not amounting to trespass.”
According to Salmond, “the wrong of nuisance consists in causing or allowing without lawful justification the escape of any deleterious thing from his land or from elsewhere into land in possession of the plaintiff, e.g. water, smoke, fumes, gas, noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease, germs, animals”.
Classification of Nuisance:
A nuisance may be categorized into Public Nuisance or Private Nuisance.
- Private Nuisance: When pollution (e.g., air, water, noise, or soil contamination) interferes with the use and enjoyment of one’s property, it constitutes a private nuisance. For examples, noise from a nearby factory disrupting sleep or daily activities, toxic fumes from industrial operations damaging crops or property, and water pollution from a factory contaminating a homeowner’s well or water supply, etc.
- Public Nuisance: Pollution that affects the health, safety, or comfort of the public or a large group of people is considered a public nuisance. Public nuisance cases are often brought by government bodies or groups representing the affected community. For examples, polluting a river used by the public for drinking; fishing; or recreation, Large-scale air pollution from industrial facilities affecting an entire city or town, and dumping hazardous waste that endangers public health and safety, etc.
As the name suggests, public nuisance deals with interference with a right pertaining to the public. Whereas, a private nuisance is an interference with the right which is exercised exclusively by a private entity or an individual.
Nuisance as environmental pollution tort refers to an interference with the use and enjoyment of land or property, which can occur when pollution (such as noise, air, water, or soil contamination) negatively impacts individuals or communities. Under tort law, nuisance is divided into two main categories: private nuisance and public nuisance. Both forms of nuisance are relevant to environmental pollution cases and can be used to seek remedies when pollution causes harm.
Elements of Nuisance in Environmental Pollution:
- Interference: In both private and public nuisance cases, there must be some form of interference. In environmental cases, this interference is typically pollution—whether through air, water, noise, or soil contamination.
- Unreasonableness: For an interference to amount to a nuisance, it must be unreasonable. Factors such as the severity of the pollution, the duration, and its impact on health or property are considered to determine whether the interference is unreasonable.
- Substantial Harm: The interference must cause actual, substantial harm, whether in the form of property damage, health problems, or loss of enjoyment of land. Mere inconveniences or minor annoyances are not sufficient.
- Causation: There must be a direct link between the defendant’s actions (such as operating a factory or disposing of waste) and the pollution causing the nuisance.
Case Laws Related to Nuisance as Environmental Pollution Tort:
In Solatu V. De Held, (1851) 2 Sim NS 133 case, it was held that the continuous ringing of the bell of a Catholic church which is in a public way, accounts to Public Nuisance.
In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622 case, where residents of a locality in Ratlam filed a complaint against the municipal council for unsanitary conditions and open drains causing health hazards. The Supreme Court of India held the municipal council responsible for creating a public nuisance by failing to maintain sanitation and ordered them to take corrective measures.
In MC Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 (The Oleum Gas Leak Case) Case, where a gas leak from a chemical plant in Delhi caused environmental pollution and health hazards to the local population. The Supreme Court held that the company was liable for the public nuisance caused by the gas leak and applied the doctrine of absolute liability.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 at 660 case, where tanneries in Tamil Nadu were found to be discharging untreated effluents into rivers, causing widespread water pollution. The Supreme Court held that the pollution caused by the tanneries amounted to a public nuisance and ordered the industries to compensate for environmental damage under the polluter pays principle.
In P.A. Jacob v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1993 KER 1 case, where residents complained about the noise pollution caused by the operation of a stone crushing unit in a residential area. The Kerala High Court held that the noise pollution amounted to a private nuisance and directed the closure of the unit. The case shows that noise pollution can be considered a nuisance when it interferes with the right to enjoy one’s property.
In Attakoya Thangal v. Union of India, 1 January, 1990 case, where groundwater extraction by industries in Kerala was lowering the water table, affecting local communities. The Kerala High Court held that the depletion of groundwater due to industrial over-extraction was a public nuisance and restricted further extraction.
In Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal AIR 1982 All 285 case, the defendant had installed a brick grinding machine adjoining to the premises of the plaintiff, who was a medical practitioner. The brick grinding machine-generated lots of dust, which in turn polluted the atmosphere. The dust that was generated due to the brick grinding machine entered the consulting chamber of the plaintiff and caused physical inconvenience to the plaintiff and his patients and a red coating on the clothes which was clearly visible. It was held that special damages were proved regarding the plaintiff and a permanent injunction was issued against the defendant which would restrain him from running his brick grinding machine there.
In Krishna Gopal Verma v. State of M.P. (1986) Cri LJ 396 case, the main issue raised was where one person has come forward to complain about nuisance can it be said that the nuisance complained of, is a public nuisance as contemplated by section 133 of the Cr. P.C. The Court held this argument fallacious and said; It is not the intent of the law that the community as a whole or a large number of complainants come forward to lodge their complaint or protest against the nuisance; that does not require any particular number of complainants. A mere reading of Section 133(1) would go to show that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can be invoked on receiving a report of Police Officer or other information, and on taking such evidence if any, as he thinks fit. These words are important. Even on information received the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is empowered to take action in this behalf for either removal or regularizing a public nuisance. was considered a serious health hazard by the Supreme Court
In Ajeet Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) Cri LJ 1596 case, where the petitioner was engaged in business of loading, unloading, and stocking of fodder near a residential locality which was causing atmospheric pollution due to fine dust particles of the fodder. Endorsing the order of the magistrate for removal of the business from the locality, the Supreme Court observed: “It is very unfortunate that little care is now bestowed to the pollution problem and very lackadaisical approach is taken… very rarely people come forward and resist the same. They are normally discouraged on account of the slow-moving of the state machinery as well as the Court. But this is one of the unique cases in which the petitioner has taken the whole exercise ad brought the motion to put an end to this problem of pollution of that area.”
In M Krishna Panicker v. Appukuttan Nair, 1993(10 KLJ 725 (DB) case the Kerala High Court held that the special law, the Water Act, did not repeal the law of public nuisance under the Cr. P.C. Special law overrides general law, only if, both operate on the same field. One relates to pollution control; the other refers to the maintenance of public order and tranquility. Pushing the aggrieved citizens to the board does not bring effective results, as the board has to put itself in the position of a complainant and seek remedies before a judicial magistrate. The Code provides a mechanism for a quick remedy against nuisance. The remedy under the law of public nuisance has now become feasible, functional and reachable to the common man.
In M.C. Mehta v. Kamalnath, (2000) 6 SCC 213 case, the Court opined that environmental pollution amounts to a tort committed against the community in general. The person guilty of causing environmental pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages, so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner.
In Ramlal v. Mustafabad Oil and Oil Ginning Factory, AIR 1968 P&H 399 case, the Court observed that once a noise is found to be above the necessary threshold to attract the liability of public nuisance, it is no valid defense to contend that such noise arose out of any legal activity. Apart from this, public nuisance has been made punishable under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In Venkatappa v. B. Louis AIR 1986 AP 239 the High Court upheld lower court’s order granting mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the holes in chimney facing the plaintiff’s property, as it affected the comfort of the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the plaintiff himself came to the nuisance, which was rejected by the Court.
In Kuldeep Singh v. Subhash Chandra Jain (2000) 2 SCALE 582 the Court held that a mere possibility of injury does not entitle the plaintiff to any relief.
In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 NY2d 219 case, where Atlantic Cement Co.’s cement plant caused dust, noise, and vibrations that affected nearby residents. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that although the pollution constituted a private nuisance, the economic value of the plant was too significant to close it. Instead, the court ordered damages to be paid to the affected residents. This case is important for balancing the economic benefits of industrial operations with the harm caused by pollution.
In Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907) case, where the State of Georgia sued Tennessee Copper Co. for air pollution that damaged forests and crops. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Tennessee Copper Co.’s emissions were a public nuisance and ordered the company to reduce pollution.
In Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Services, Inc., 426 N.E.2d 824 case, where a hazardous waste disposal site was creating environmental risks for the local community. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the waste site was a public nuisance and ordered its closure.
In St. Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Tipping, [1865] 11 HL Cas 642 case, where fumes from the defendant’s smelting works caused damage to the plaintiff’s property. The House of Lords distinguished between physical damage and personal discomfort, ruling that physical damage constituted a private nuisance. Since property was damaged, the defendant was liable for nuisance. This case laid the groundwork for claims of private nuisance in cases where pollution causes actual damage to property, as opposed to mere inconvenience.
In Attorney General v. Birmingham Corporation, 70 E.R. 220 case, where the Birmingham Corporation’s sewage disposal system polluted a river. The UK court ruled that the pollution was a public nuisance and ordered the corporation to abate the pollution.
In Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. (1961) 2 All ER 145, case, where the defendant’s factory caused high noise, emitted smokes, oil, fumes and smell and polluted the environment along with harming the plaintiff’s health because of his own sensitive health issue. An action was brought by the plaintiff for nuisance by acid smuts, smell and noise. The defendants were held liable to the plaintiff in respect of emission of acid smuts, noise or smell by the UK High Court.
In Barr v. Biffa Waste Services Ltd., [2013] QB 455 case, where residents living near a landfill site operated by Biffa Waste Services complained of smells, noise, and pollution. The UK High Court ruled in favour of the residents, holding that the smells amounted to a private nuisance.
In Munro v. Southern Dairies Ltd., [1955] VLR 332 case, where milk trucks operated by Southern Dairies caused noise pollution and disturbed nearby residents. The Australian Court found that the noise from the trucks amounted to a private nuisance and awarded damages to the affected residents.
In Environmental Protection Authority v. Caltex Refining Co., [1994] AU Constr Law Nlr 66 case, Caltex Refining Co. was prosecuted for polluting a river by discharging harmful substances. The New South Wales Court of Appeal held that Caltex’s actions were a public nuisance and imposed heavy fines for the environmental damage caused.
In British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2004] 2 SCR 74 case, where a forest fire started by Canadian Forest Products damaged large tracts of forest in British Columbia. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadian Forest Products was liable for public nuisance for negligently causing the fire, leading to environmental harm.
Remedies for Environmental Torts:
Victims of environmental pollution can seek various remedies under tort law, such as:
- Compensatory Damages: Injured person can claim monetary compensation for personal injury, property damage, loss of livelihood, or health problems caused by pollution. The compensation aims to restore the injured party to the position they were in before the harm occurred.
- Injunctions: A court order requiring the polluter to stop the harmful activity or take action to prevent further harm. Injunctions are a powerful tool to prevent ongoing or imminent environmental damage.
- Restitution: In some cases, courts may order the polluter to restore the damaged environment to its original state or bear the cost of clean-up and remediation.
Challenges in Using Tort Law for Environmental Protection:
- Proving Causation: One of the major challenges in environmental tort cases is proving the causal link between the defendant’s activities and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Pollution often has multiple sources, making it difficult to attribute the damage to a specific party.
- Multiple Parties Involved: Environmental pollution often involves multiple entities, including industries, government agencies, and individuals. This complicates the process of holding a single party responsible for the harm.
- Limited Access to Justice: Marginalized and low-income communities, who are most affected by environmental pollution, often lack the resources to pursue litigation against powerful corporations or government bodies.
- Lengthy Legal Process: Tort claims related to environmental pollution can be time-consuming and costly, which may deter victims from seeking justice.
Conclusion:
Nuisance plays a pivotal role in regulating activities that cause harm to the environment, either by interfering with individuals’ use and enjoyment of their property (private nuisance) or by harming public resources and affecting the broader community (public nuisance). Through nuisance claims, courts have provided effective remedies for various forms of environmental pollution, including air and water pollution, noise disturbances, and hazardous waste mismanagement.
The tort of nuisance is particularly valuable for addressing environmental harm because it allows individuals or communities to hold polluters accountable without needing to prove negligence or breach of a statutory duty. In private nuisance, the focus is on the interference with property rights, where physical damage or significant discomfort caused by environmental pollution can lead to liability. In public nuisance, the focus is broader, dealing with activities that harm public health, safety, or the environment as a whole, such as industrial emissions or pollution of water bodies.
Key judicial principles, such as balancing interests (weighing public utility against harm), the polluter pays principle, and strict or absolute liability, have strengthened the effectiveness of nuisance claims in environmental law. Courts have evolved the concept of nuisance to address modern environmental challenges, ensuring that industries, corporations, and public authorities are accountable for their role in environmental degradation.
Overall, nuisance as an environmental tort provides an important legal tool for individuals and communities seeking redress for pollution, reinforcing the notion that environmental harm should be remedied, even when it arises from lawful industrial or governmental activities. It remains a crucial part of environmental protection law in many jurisdictions.
Related Posts:
- Constitutional Provisions for Environmental Protection
- Criminal Law Provisions for Environmental Protection
- Negligence and Environmental Pollution (Tort)
- Strict Liability and Environmental Pollution (Tort)