Nuisance is a continuing wrong, temporary or isolated acts do not constitute tort of nuisance

Stone v. Bolton, is a good illustration on the point. In this case the plaintiff was passing through a highway. There was a cricket ground at a some distance from the highway. He was hit by a cricket ball from the defendant’s ground and was injured. It was held that the defendant was not liable because it had never happened before and it was the only incident in many years.

In Masters v. London Borough of Bent an action was brought against the defendant for damages. The plaintiff alleged that the roots of lemon tree planted by the defendant’s ancestors had caused damage to the foundation of the plaintiff’s house. The tort was done when the house was in the possession of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff had repaired and subsequently purchased. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the suit for damages. The defendants contended that the damage caused to the house was done before the plaintiff had purchased it, and, therefore, he was not entitled to get damages as a purchaser for tort committed to his father. But is was held that when a continuing wrong is done to any house, the person had possession in a proprietory interest had right to sue for damages whether tort is had started before the acquisition of interest in the property or after the acquisition of the property. The existence of roots of lemon tree was a continuing wrong which had affected the ownership of the both the father and the son and caused a continuing damage, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to damages.

But if the injury is serious then an isolated act may amount to nuisance.

Question:- “Nuisance is a continuing wrong, temporary or isolated acts do not constitute tort of nuisance.” Examine the statement.

Leave a Comment