If certain acts does not cause nuisance to a healthy man, the sick man cannot bring an action if he suffers any harms from it, even if, it causes substantial damage to him. If an ordinary person is not disturbed by some noise, the plaintiff will not be entitled to sue against it if disturbed by some noise, the plaintiff will not be entitled to sue against it if disturbs him in his work or sleep due to his over it sensitivenes.
The same act if done at as particular place or at a particular time becomes a nuisance and with the change place and time such acts becomes essential for life. Whether any act is nuisance or not its test is that whether it is considered by an reasonable ordinary man in a given society and essential in the course of their life. A person who is so sensitive that he perturbed by a little interference may be a test to determine unreasonableness of the act. In modern cities noise and smoke has become part and parcel of the daily life. Persons residing in a peaceful atmosphere in distant rural areas coming to cities should not hope for such atmosphere. It should be determined on the basis of a person and circumstances, in which he lives. By starting a delicate trade a person cannot increase the liability of his neighbour.
In Rabinson v. Killbert, the plaintiff and defendant both lived in the same house the plaintiff has stored some brown coloured paper in his godown. The defendant was doing work of making boxes in his portion in the ground floor. For this he had to lit fire to keep that part of the house warm. As a result to defendant’s act the plaintiffs paper got warm-up and its colour had faded up and its price had considerably gone down. In an action by the plaintiff for damages, it was held that the plaintiff was not liable, because such an oridinary warm like this is not expected to cause any harm. Harm was caused due to the delicate nature of paper. The Judge observed.
“A man carries on an exceptionally delicate trade cannot complain because it is injured by his neighbour doing something lawful on his own property; if it is something which would not injure anything but an exceptionally delicate trade.”
In Abdul Hakim and others v. Ahmad Khan the defendant constructed a latrine at a distance of three feet from the kitchen of the plaintiff and an open drainage for latrine water. The plaintiff contended that the construction of latrine by the defendant was a nuisance because due to the bad smell from the latrine by the defendant was a nuisance because due to the bad smell from the latrine he would not be able to property use this property and it would cause interference in this physical comfort and would adversely affect his health. Though the plaintiff was not the owner of the land but the room in the Kitchen was situated the door which opened towards the lane were in existence prior to the construction of the latrine. It was held that defendant’s act amounted to nuisance. The bad smell emanating from the defendant’s latrine was a continuing one and adversely affected the right of the plaintiff to use his kitchen for cooking food and taking food.
Shanmughaval Chettiar v. Sri Ram Kumar Ginning Firm, the plaintiff firm had constructed a building to establish a Ginning Factory. Therein, after obtaining licence from the Punchayal Union. Thereafter the defendant was also granted a license to start a brick kiln on the adjacent land. The plaintiff brought an action for restraining the defendants from starting brick kiln on the ground that the fumes from the proposed brick kiln would spoil the quality of cotton in the Ginning Factory. It was contended that during the windy season sparks from the brick kiln could likely cause fire in the cotton godown and the factory. The Court held that the construction of the brick kiln at that place would be nuisance and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to injunction against the defendant. It was held that where nuisance was likely to cause danger to the claimant’s health and life the Court will not hesitate in preventing it. But where nuisance is likely to reduces the comfort of a person the Court would consider whether it should grant injunction to prevent it or to award damages to the injured.
Question:- “Acts which are reasonable do not become unreasonable because of sensitiveness of the plaintiff even though he damaged caused from it is substantial.” Examine the statement.