Odger's English Common Law

PRIVATE RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES. 503
must be extraordinary, not merely an increase of ordinary
traffic. 1
If the amount does not exceed £250, it may be
recovered in the county court, otherwise the action must be
brought in the High Court
;
2 but in neither case can an action
be brought to recover the expenses of repairs occasioned
by extraordinary traffic, &c, until the repairs have been
executed. 3
Again any man, who does anything which vitiates the air
or poisons the water supply of a particular neighbourhood, or
renders life in that neighbourhood sensibly less salubrious
or enjoyable, will be guilty of a public nuisance. 4 And
any private individual, whose health is injured, or whose
vigour is impaired, or whose property is damaged by
the act of the defendant, will have a right of action in tort
for such special injury. 5
This special injury must be something
different in Sits nature from the annoyance suffered by
the public generally. It is not sufficient that the plaintiff is
affected by the nuisance to a greater extent than his neigh-
bours, if he isj affected by it in the same way. If the
chimney of a factory emits noxious fumes, which annoy all
who reside in its neighbourhood to a greater or less extent,
this is a public nuisance for which none of them can bring an
action, unless he has suffered some other damage different in
kind from that which his neighbours have sustained. But
remember that " it takes more than one puff of smoke to create
a nuisance by noxious vapour, and more than one bang of a
big drum to create a nuisance by noise." 6
The defendants, a tramway company, who were by their special Act under
1 Weston-super-Mare U. D. C. v. Henry Butt A Co., [1919] 2 Ch. 1 ; and see
B u-mley, #«., Sniity v. Worsborough U. D. C, [1916] 1 A. C. 291 ; Abingdon R. D. C.
v. Oefonl Tranuuzys, Ltd., [1917] i K. B. 318.
2 The Locomotives Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vict, c 29), s. 12; Ripon R. D. C. v.
Armitage ani Hodgson,, [1919] 1 K. B. 559. As to the limit of time within which an
action maybe brought, see Kent C. C. v. Folkstone Corp., [1905] 1 K. B. 620; and
Bromley R. D. C. v. Croydon Corp., [1908] 1 K. B. 353. For the pleadings in such an
action see Bullen and Leake, 7th ed., pp. SSI, 756.
» Little Hulton V. D. C. v. Jackson (1904), 68 J. P. 451.
4 See, for instance, Fotter v. Warblington U. D. C, [1906] 1 K. B. 648.
6 It was formerly held, e.g., in Vaughan v. Taff Vale By. Co. (1860), 6 H. & N.
679, that in the absence of negligence a railway company could not be held liable
for damage arising out of the use of their statutory powers. But the Railway Fires
Act, 1905 (5 Edw. VII. c. 11), does away with this defence and compels them to
pay' compensation in all cases where the claim is for damage done to agricultural
lands or crops and does not exceed £100.
" Per Lord Parker in Hammerton v. Dysart, [1916] 1 A. C. at p. 86.