Odger's English Common Law

502 NUISANCE.
guilty of a public nuisance to a highway, and she had suffered loss and
damage over and above that sustained by the rest of the community. 1
The common law made it the duty of every private citizen
to prevent his land from being so used as to become a public
nuisance. 2
But a highway authority stands in a somewhat
different position : it cannot be made liable in damages for
a mere nonfeasance or omission to perform its duty, e.g., for
neglecting to repair the highway. 3 The proper remedy for
such neglect is a complaint to the Local Government Board
under section 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875. But if
the surveyor or other officer of a district or borough council has
in the execution of his duties done any wrongful act, or com-
mitted any default other than passive neglect, the council is
liable in damages. 5
Thus it is the duty of the sanitary authority in London to keep the
streets 6 properly swept and cleansed this involves the removal of snow ;
;
yet if the authority omit to sweep away the snow, a man who suffers special
damage in consequence has no right of action. 7
It sometimes happens that a particular person uses the
highway in an extraordinary manner or to an unusual degree
and though such user may not be unlawful, nor strictly a
nuisance, still it may put an unfair strain on the metalling of
the road and cause an undue amount of damage. It was felt
that such a person ought to make a special contribution to the
funds of the highway authority. Accordingly, by section 23
of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, 8
whenever damage has been c aused to a highway " by excessive
weight passing along the same, or extraordinary traffic
thereon," the expense of repairing it can be recovered from
the person who created the traffic. But the traffic created
1 Reedie v. L. $ N. W. By. Co. (1849), 4 Exch. 244.
2 Att.-Gen. v. Tod Heatley, [1897] 1 Ch. 560, 56G.
8 Thomson v. Mayor, #c, of Brighton, [1894] 1 Q. B. 332 ; Municipal Council of
Sydney v. BowJte, [1895] A. C. 433.
4
38 & 39 Vict. o. 55 ; Robinson v. Workington Corporation, [1897] 1 Q B.
619 ; Peebles v. Oswaldtivistle (\ D. C, [1898] A. C. 387.
5 The action must be brought within six months after the act complained of, under
the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61) s 1
5 '
54 & 65 Vict. c. 76, s. 29.
' Saunders v. Holbom District Board of Works, [1895] 1 Q. B. 64 • and see
Att.-Gen. v. Guardians of the Poor for Dorking (1881), 20 Ch. D. 595. '
8 41 & 42 Vict. c. 77 ; and see Kent C. C. v. Vidler, [1895] 1 Q. B. at p. 452
Morpeth R. D. C. v. BnlloeTts Hall Colliery Co., Ltd., [1913] 2 K. B 7
; ;