ISSUE:
Whether the defendant’s brick-grinding machine, situated near the plaintiff’s medical clinic, constituted a private nuisance by generating excessive dust that interfered with the plaintiff’s use of his property, causing discomfort to him and his patients and whether the damage caused to the plaintiff was entitled to a legal remedy ?
RULE:
Nuisance is an act or omission which is an interference with, disturbance or annoyance to a person in the exercise or enjoyments of a right belonging to him as a member of the public, (when it is a public nuisance), or his ownership or occupation of land or of some easement, private, or other right used or enjoyed in connection with land, (when it is a private nuisance)
All that the law requires is that when an act amounts to public nuisance, an individual can sue in his own right only if he is able to prove particular damage to himself i.e., damage which is particular to him as opposed to the damage or inconvenience caused to the public at large or to a section of the public.
Every injury is considered to be substantial which a reasonable person considers to be so.
Causing of actual damage by the act complained of as a nuisance is beside the point. If actual damage or actual injury were to be the criterion a person will have to wait before the injury becomes palpable or demonstrable before instituting a suit or its abatement.