nuisance

View more Business & Finance videos

For more information on nuisance, visit Britannica.com.

noun

Something that annoys: aggravation, annoyance, besetment, bother, irritant, irritation, peeve, plague, torment, vexation. See feelings, pain/pleasure.

Definition: annoyance; annoying person
Antonyms: blessing, delight, happiness, help, pleasantry, pleasure

Before there were statutes and regulations dealing with public health, some protections were afforded by common law—the body of law developed through the case-by-case adjudication of disputes. The ancient protections against nuisances are common law rules that were originally intended for protection of private property rights and that, incidentally, benefitted public health.

A "nuisance" (also called a "private nuisance") is a condition or activity that unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of private property. Examples of nuisances that affect public health include toxic chemicals leaching from a nearby mine into a landowner's well water; excessive noise; smoke or other air pollutants; and even hordes of flies from a neighbor's manure pile. A nuisance is usually ongoing; a one-time or brief occurrence would not usually be a substantial enough interference with property rights to constitute a nuisance. (This does not mean there is no remedy for harm caused by a one-time occurrence, such as a chemical explosion.)

A landowner may file a court action seeking redress from the responsible party for a nuisance. One remedy is damages (i.e., money) to compensate for harm resulting from the nuisance. Courts can also grant injunctive relief, such as ordering the responsible party to abate the nuisance. A court can also enjoin (bar) an anticipated activity that has a high likelihood of causing a nuisance, such as building an incinerator in a residential area.

Injunctive relief can be intrusive and onerous, and therefore it is granted only if justified in light of all the relevant circumstances, including the respective harms and benefits to each party, where the fault lies, and the existence of alternative remedies. For example, if homeowners sue to enjoin construction of a factory in their neighborhood, the court would weigh such factors as the health effects and decreased property values likely to be suffered by the residents, as well as the feasibility and cost to the company of locating the project elsewhere. If homeowners seek injunctive relief due to pollution from an existing factory, the cost on the defendant's side of the equation is likely to be much greater, and thus harder to overcome, especially if relief would require shutting down the factory.

The cause of action for nuisance discussed above is sometimes called private nuisance, to distinguish it from public nuisance. Whereas a private nuisance is an invasion of private property rights, a public nuisance is an interference with a right held in common by the public. The common law rules against public nuisance were developed, in part, for the protection of the public health and safety. Pollution of a river that interferes with the public's right to swim or fish is an example of a public nuisance. A governmental entity, or any individual affected by a public nuisance, can sue in court for abatement of the nuisance or other relief.

Today, there are other avenues available to accomplish goals that once relied solely on the common law. Federal and state environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, provide protections against public nuisances that harm the environment and public health. Much like the common law rule against public nuisances, many of these statutes can be enforced in court not only by governments, but also by affected citizens. Although invoked less frequently nowadays, the old common law protections against private and public nuisance are still generally recognized and available if needed.

(SEE ALSO: Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Public Health and the Law; Regulatory Authority; Toxic Torts)

Bibliography

Bonine, J. E., and McGarity, T. O. (1992). The Law of Environmental Protection, 2nd edition. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Co.

Boston, W., and Madden, M. S. (1994). Law of Environmental and Toxic Torts. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Co.

Findley, R. W., and Farber, D. A. (1996). Environmental Law in a Nutshell. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Co.

— RUSSELLYN S. CARRUTH

1. A public nuisance is said to exist in a building, structure, or premise: (a) if it is insufficiently cleaned, drained, lighted, or ventilated for the intended usage, (b) if it poses conditions detrimental to public health or dangerous to human life, and/or (c) if its air or water supplies are unwholesome.
2. A continuing legal wrong, usually committed by an owner or occupant of property on neighboring persons or property.

A legal action to redress harm arising from the use of one's property.

The two types of nuisance are private nuisance and public nuisance. A private nuisance is a civil wrong; it is the unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use of one's property in a manner that substantially interferes with the enjoyment or use of another individual's property, without an actual trespass or physical invasion to the land. A public nuisance is a criminal wrong; it is an act or omission that obstructs, damages, or inconveniences the rights of the community.

Public Nuisance

The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes that threaten the health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a community. Violators may be punished by a criminal sentence, a fine, or both. A defendant may also be required to remove a nuisance or to pay the costs of removal. For example, a manufacturer who has polluted a stream might be fined and might also be ordered to pay the cost of cleanup. Public nuisances may interfere with public health, such as in the keeping of diseased animals or a malarial pond. Public safety nuisances include shooting fireworks in the streets, storing explosives, practicing medicine without a license, or harboring a vicious dog. Houses of prostitution, illegal liquor establishments, gaming houses, and unlicensed prizefights are examples of nuisances that interfere with public morals. Obstructing a highway or creating a condition to make travel unsafe or highly disagreeable are examples of nuisances threatening the public convenience.

A public nuisance interferes with the public as a class, not merely one person or a group of citizens. No civil remedy exists for a private citizen harmed by a public nuisance, even if her harm was greater than the harm suffered by others; a criminal prosecution is the exclusive remedy. However, if the individual suffers harm that is different from that suffered by the general public, she may maintain a tort action for damages. For example, if dynamiting has thrown a large boulder onto a public highway, those who use the highway cannot maintain a nuisance action for the inconvenience. However, a motorist who is injured from colliding with the boulder may bring a tort action for personal injuries.

Some nuisances can be both public and private in certain circumstances where the public nuisance substantially interferes with the use of an individual's adjoining land. For example, pollution of a river might constitute both a public and a private nuisance. This is known as a mixed nuisance.

Private Nuisance

A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.

Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house, destruction of crops, raising of a water table, or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened in the future.

An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children.

Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance.

Legal Responsibility

A private nuisance is a tort, that is, a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a court will examine three factors: the defendant's fault, whether there has been a substantial interference with the plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct.

Fault

Fault means that the defendant intentionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land or that the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actual harm or substantial risk of future harm to the plaintiff's interest. For example, a defendant who continues to spray chemicals into the air after learning that they are blowing onto the plaintiff's land is deemed to be intending that result. Where it is alleged that a defendant has violated a statute, proving the elements of the statute will establish fault.

Substantial Interference

The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless.

Reasonableness of Defendant's Conduct

If the interference with the plaintiff's interest is substantial, a determination must then be made that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear it or to bear it without compensation. This is a balancing process weighing the respective interests of both parties. The law recognizes that the activities of others must be accommodated to a certain extent, particularly in matters of industry, commerce, or trade. The nature and gravity of the harm is balanced against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness of the conduct.

The following are factors to be considered: [bl]Extent and duration of the disturbance;

Nature of the harm;

Social value of the plaintiff's use of his property or other interest;

Burden to the plaintiff in preventing the harm;

Value of the defendant's conduct, in general and to the particular community;

Motivation of the defendant;

Feasibility of the defendant's mitigating or preventing the harm;

Locality and suitability of the uses of the land by both parties.

Zoning boards use these factors to enact restrictions of property uses in specific locations. In this way, zoning laws work to prohibit public nuisances and to maintain the quality of a neighborhood.

Defenses

In an attempt to escape liability, a defendant may argue that legislation (such as zoning laws or licenses) authorizes a particular activity. Legislative authority will not excuse a defendant from liability if the conduct is unreasonable.

A defendant may not escape liability by arguing that others are also contributing to the harm; damages will be apportioned according to a defendant's share of the blame. Moreover, a defendant is liable even where her actions without the actions of others would not have constituted a nuisance.

Defendants sometimes argue that a plaintiff "came to a nuisance" by moving onto land next to an already operating source of interference. A new owner is entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of her land the same as anyone else, but the argument may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. It may also have an impact in determining damages, because the purchase price may have reflected the existence of the nuisance.

Remedies

Redress for nuisance is commonly monetary damages. An injunction or abatement may also be proper under certain circumstances. An injunction orders a defendant to stop, remove, restrain, or restrict a nuisance or abandon plans for a threatened nuisance. In public nuisance cases, a fine or sentence may be imposed, in addition to abatement or injunctive relief.

Injunction is a drastic remedy, used only when damage or the threat of damage is irreparable and not satisfactorily compensable only by monetary damages. The court examines the economic hardships to the parties and the interest of the public in allowing the continuation of the enterprise.

A self-help remedy, abatement by the plaintiff, is available under limited circumstances. This privilege must be exercised within a reasonable time after learning of the nuisance and usually requires notice to the defendant and the defendant's failure to act. Reasonable force may be used to employ the abatement, and a plaintiff may be liable for unreasonable or unnecessary damages. For example, dead tree limbs extending dangerously over a neighbor's house may be removed by the neighbor in danger, after notifying the offending landowner of the nuisance. In cases where an immediate danger to health, property, or life exists, no notification is necessary.

See: land-use control; tort law.

LearnThatWord.com is a free vocabulary and spelling program where you only pay for results!

That which endangers life or health, offends the senses, violates the laws of decency, or obstructs reasonable and comfortable use of property.

• Crimes, Criminals, and Civil Offenders - nuisance: wrongful use of one’s property, causing damage or inconvenience to another
• Crimes - nuisance: use of one’s property to damage or inconvenience another

For the 1921 film, see The Nuisance. For statistics, see Nuisance parameter.

Nuisance (also spelled nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as,

"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all His Majesty's subjects".^[1]

Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the "right of quiet enjoyment" is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed.

Contents 1 Definition 2 History and legal development of nuisance 3 Remedies 4 Inspector of Nuisance 5 Law related to nuisance, by country 5.1 United Kingdom 5.2 United States 6 Environmental nuisance 7 From Britannica 1911 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

Definition

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass (land, chattels) Conversion Detinue Replevin Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of care Standard of care Proximate cause Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine Duty to rescue Specific types Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) Employment-related Entrustment Malpractice (legal, medical)
Liability torts
Product liability Quasi-tort Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation Invasion of privacy False light Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections Seduction
Economic torts
Fraud Tortious interference Conspiracy Restraint of trade
Liability, remedies
Last clear chance Eggshell skull Vicarious liability Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage Damages Injunction Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers Licensees Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts Criminal law Evidence Property Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v t e

Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

Legally, the term nuisance is traditionally used in three ways:

1. to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (e.g., indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney)
2. to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (e.g., loud noises or objectionable odors)
3. to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two.^[2] However, the "interference" was not the result of a neighbor stealing land or trespassing on the land. Instead, it arose from activities taking place on another person's land that affected the enjoyment of that land.^[3]

The law of nuisance was created to stop such bothersome activities or conduct when they unreasonably interfered either with the rights of other private landowners (i.e., private nuisance) or with the rights of the general public (i.e., public nuisance)

A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the public's right to property. It includes conduct that interferes with public health, safety, peace or convenience. The unreasonableness may be evidenced by statute, or by the nature of the act, including how long, and how bad, the effects of the activity may be.^[4]

A private nuisance is simply a violation of one's use of quiet enjoyment of land. It doesn't include trespass.^[5]

To be a nuisance, the level of interference must rise above the merely aesthetic. For example: if your neighbour paints their house purple, it may offend you; however, it doesn't rise to the level of nuisance. In most cases, normal uses of a property that can constitute quiet enjoyment cannot be restrained in nuisance either. For example, the sound of a crying baby may be annoying, but it is an expected part of quiet enjoyment of property and does not constitute a nuisance.

Any affected property owner has standing to sue for a private nuisance. If a nuisance is widespread enough, but yet has a public purpose, it is often treated at law as a public nuisance. Owners of interests in real property (whether owners, lessors, or holders of an easement or other interest) have standing only to bring private nuisance suits.

History and legal development of nuisance

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.

Remedies

Under the common law, the only remedy for a nuisance was the payment of damages. However, with the development of the courts of equity, the remedy of an injunction became available to prevent a defendant from repeating the activity that caused the nuisance, and specifying punishment for contempt if the defendant is in breach of such an injunction.

The law and economics movement has been involved in analyzing the most efficient choice of remedies given the circumstances of the nuisance. In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. a cement plant interfered with a number of neighbors, yet the cost of complying with a full injunction would have been far more than a fair value of the cost to the plaintiffs of continuation. The New York court allowed the cement plant owner to 'purchase' the injunction for a specified amount—the permanent damages. In theory, the permanent damage amount should be the net present value of all future damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Inspector of Nuisance

An Inspector of Nuisance is, or was, the title of an office in several English-speaking jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions this term is now archaic, the position and/or term having been replaced by others. For example, in the United Kingdom, this office was generally associated with public health and sanitation. Both the 1847 Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act and the Metropolis Management Act 1855 defined such an office.^[6] Similar offices were established across the British Empire. The nearest modern equivalent of this position in the UK is an Environmental health officer. In the United States, a modern example is found in Section 3767^[7] of the Ohio Revised Code which defines such a position to investigate nuisances, where this term broadly covers establishments in which lewdness and alcohol are found.

Law related to nuisance, by country

United Kingdom

Main article: Nuisance in English law

The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy of the University of Manchester have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.)

Under English law, unlike US law, it is no defence that the claimant "came to the nuisance": the 1879 case of Sturges v Bridgman is still good law, and a new owner can bring a claim in nuisance for the existing activities of a neighbour.

United States

Many states have limited instances where a claim of nuisance may be brought. Such limitation often became necessary as the sensibilities of urban dwellers were offended by smells of agricultural waste when they moved to rural locations. For example: many states and provinces have "right to farm" provisions, which allow any agricultural use of land zoned or historically used for agriculture.

There are two classes of nuisance under the American law: a nuisance in fact, or "nuisance per accidens", and a nuisance per se. The classification determines whether the claim goes to the jury, or gets decided by the judge. An alleged nuisance in fact is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury, who will decide whether the thing (or act) in question created a nuisance, by examining its location and surroundings, the manner of its conduct, and other circumstances.^[8] A determination that something is a nuisance in fact also requires proof of the act and its consequences.^[8]

By contrast, a nuisance per se is "an activity, or an act, structure, instrument, or occupation which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings."^[9] Liability for a nuisance per se is absolute, and injury to the public is presumed; if its existence is alleged and established by proof, it is also established as a matter of law.^[10] Therefore, a judge would decide a nuisance per se, while a jury would decide a nuisance in fact.

Most nuisance claims allege a nuisance in fact, for the simple reason that not many actions or structures have been deemed to be nuisances per se. In general, if an act, or use of property, is lawful, or authorized by competent authority, it cannot be a nuisance per se.^[11] Rather, the act in question must either be declared by public statute, or by case law, to be a nuisance per se.^[12] There are few state or federal statutes or case law declaring actions or structures to be a nuisance in and of themselves. Few activities or structures, in and of themselves and under any and all circumstances, are a nuisance; which is how courts determine whether or not an action or structure is a nuisance per se.^[13]

Over the last 1000 years, public nuisance has been used by governmental authorities to stop conduct that was considered quasi-criminal because, although not strictly illegal, it was deemed unreasonable in view of its likelihood to injure someone in the general public. Donald Gifford^[14] argues that civil liability has always been an "incidental aspect of public nuisance".^[15] Traditionally, actionable conduct involved the blocking of a public roadway, the dumping of sewage into a public river or the blasting of a stereo in a public park.^[16] To stop this type of conduct, governments sought injunctions either enjoining the activity that caused the nuisance or requiring the responsible party to abate the nuisance.

In recent decades, however, governments blurred the lines between public and private nuisance causes of action. William Prosser noted this in 1966 and warned courts and scholars against confusing and merging the substantive laws of the two torts. In some states, his warning went unheeded and some courts and legislatures have created vague and ill-defined definitions to describe what constitutes a public nuisance. For example, Florida's Supreme Court has held that a public nuisance is any thing that causes "annoyance to the community or harm to public health."^[17]

A contemporary example of a nuisance law in the United States is the Article 40 Bylaw of Amherst, Massachusetts known as the Nuisance House Bylaw. The law is voted on by members of the town at town meetings. The stated purpose of such a law is "In accordance with the Town of Amherst’s Home Rule Authority, and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town, this bylaw shall permit the Town to impose liability on owners and other responsible persons for the nuisances and harm caused by loud and unruly gatherings on private property and shall discourage the consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage persons at such gatherings."^[18]

In practice, the law works so that if one member of the neighborhood feels, that a neighbor's noise level is annoying or excessively loud, that neighbor is instructed to inform the town police so that they can respond to the location of the noise. "The responding officer has some discretion in how to deal with the noise complaint.... When determining the appropriate response, the officer may take many factors into consideration, such as the severity of the noise, the time of day, whether the residents have been warned before, the cooperation of the residents to address the problem."^[19][20]

The term is also used less formally in the United States to describe the non-meritorious nature of frivolous litigation. A lawsuit may be described as a "nuisance suit", and a settlement a "nuisance settlement", if the defendant pays money to the plaintiff to drop the case primarily to spare the cost of litigation, rather than because the suit would have a significant likelihood of winning.

Environmental nuisance

In the field of environmental science, there are a number of phenomena which are considered nuisances under the law, including most notably noise and light pollution. Moreover there are some issues that are not necessarily legal matters that are termed environmental nuisance; for example, an excess population of insects or other vectors may be termed a "nuisance population" in an ecological sense.^[21]

From Britannica 1911

A common nuisance is punishable as a misdemeanour at common law, where no special provision is made by statute. In modern times, many of the old common law nuisances have been the subject of legislation. It's no defence for a master or employer that a nuisance is caused by the acts of his servants, if such acts are within the scope of their employment, even though such acts are done without his knowledge, and contrary to his orders. Nor is it a defence that the nuisance has been in existence for a great length of time, for no lapse of time will legitimate a public nuisance.

A private nuisance is an act, or omission, which causes inconvenience or damage to a private person, and is left to be redressed by action. There must be some sensible diminution of these rights affecting the value or convenience of the property. "The real question in all the cases is the question of fact, whether the annoyance is such as materially to interfere with the ordinary comfort of human existence" (Lord Romilly in Crump v. Lambert (1867) L.R. 3 Eq. 409). A private nuisance, differing in this respect from a public nuisance, may be legalized by uninterrupted use for twenty years. It used to be thought that, if a man knew there was a nuisance and went and lived near it, he couldn't recover, because, it was said, it is he that goes to the nuisance, and not the nuisance to him. But this has long ceased to be law, as regards both the remedy by damages, and the remedy by injunction.

The remedy for a public nuisance is by information, indictment, summary procedure or abatement. An information lies in cases of great public importance, such as the obstruction of a navigable river by piers. In some matters, the law allows the party to take the remedy into his own hands, and to "abate" the nuisance. Thus; if a gate be placed across a highway, any person lawfully using the highway may remove the obstruction, provided that no breach of the peace is caused thereby. The remedy for a private nuisance is by injunction, action for damages or abatement. An action lies in every case for a private nuisance; it also lies where the nuisance is public, provided that the plaintiff can prove that he has sustained some special injury. In such a case, the civil is in addition to the criminal remedy. In abating a private nuisance, care must be taken not to do more damage than is necessary for the removal of the nuisance.

In Scotland, there's no recognized distinction between public and private nuisances. The law as to what constitutes a nuisance is substantially the same as in England. A list of statutory nuisances will be found in the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867, and amending acts. The remedy for nuisance is by interdict, or action.

This section incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

See also

• Aldred's Case
• Haslem v. Lockwood
• Law
• Public nuisance
• Robinson v Kilvert
• Rylands v. Fletcher
• Tort law
• William L. Prosser
• Loud music

References

1. ^ Sir J. F. Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, p.120
2. ^ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821A cmt. b (1979). Originally developed as a private tort tied to the land, a nuisance action was generally brought when a person interfered with another's "use or enjoyment of land."
3. ^ "William L. Prosser, Private Action for Public Nuisance, 52 Va. L. Rev. 997, 997 (1966)".
4. ^ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B
5. ^ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821D
6. ^ History of Environmental Health, States of Jersey
7. ^ Section 3767, Ohio Revised Code
8. ^ ^{a b} City of Sunland Park v. Harris News, Inc., 2005-NMCA-128, 45, 124 P.3d 566, 138 N.M. 58 (citing 58 AM.JUR.2D NUISANCES § 21)
9. ^ Id. 40 (citing State ex rel. Village of Los Ranchos v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 150, 164, 889 P.2d 185, 199 (1994))
10. ^ See 58 AM.JUR.2D NUISANCES § 21
11. ^ See 58 AM.JUR.2D NUISANCES § 20
12. ^ State v. Davis, 65 N.M. 128, 132, 333 P.2d 613, 616 (1958); See also Sunland Park, 2005-NMCA-128, 47
13. ^ Koeber, 72 N.M. at 5, 380 P.2d at 16.
14. ^ "Donald G. Gifford", Research Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law
15. ^ Donald G. Gifford, Public Nuisance as a Mass Products Liability Tort, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 741, 781 (2003)
16. ^ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821A cmt. b (1979)
17. ^ John Gray, "Public Nuisance Law: An Historical Perspective"
18. ^ http://amherstnoise.weebly.com/nuisance-house-bylaw.html
19. ^ http://amherstnoise.weebly.com/enforcement.html
20. ^ http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=66
21. ^ C.Michael Hogan, ed. 2010. American Kestrel. Encyclopedia of Earth, U.S. National Council for Science and the Environment, Ed-in-chief C.Cleveland

External links

Look up nuisance in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• "Public Nuisance Law": Essays and articles written by legal experts in the subject of public nuisance law.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Common misspelling(s) of nuisance

• nuisanse
• nusance

Dansk (Danish)
n. - ulempe, gene, pestilens

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    forstyrre, være en plageånd

Nederlands (Dutch)
last, hinder, lastpost

Français (French)
n. - désagrément, peste, personne pénible, gêne, (Jur) nuisance

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    embêter tout le monde

Deutsch (German)
n. - Ärgernis, Plage, Belästigung

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    lästig werden

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - βάσανο, ενόχληση, κακός μπελάς, φασαρία, επιβάρυνση

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    γίνομαι ενοχλητικός

Italiano (Italian)
seccatura, fastidio

idioms:

• make a nuisance of    rendersi insopportabile

Português (Portuguese)
n. - incômodo (m)

idioms:

• make a nuisance of    tornar-se inoportuno a outras pessoas

Русский (Russian)
обуза, досада, неудобство

idioms:

• make a nuisance of    надоедать кому-либо

Español (Spanish)
n. - pesadez, lata, molestia, fastidio

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    persona o animal que molesta

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - otyg, ofog, oskick, obehag, besvär, plåga, bråkstake, förfång (jur.)

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
讨厌的人或东西, 损害, 麻烦事

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    惹人讨厌, 被人讨厌

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 討厭的人或東西, 損害, 麻煩事

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    惹人討厭, 被人討厭

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 남에게 해가 되는 행위

idioms:

• make a nuisance of oneself    남에게 폐를 끼치다

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 迷惑をかけるもの, 迷惑な行為, 不法妨害

idioms:

• make a nuisance of    邪魔になる

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) اذى, ازعاج‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮טרדן, מטרד‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.