Odger's English Common Law

506 PEIVATK NUISANCE.
of the learned judge as to what can in law be a nuisance. It
often becomes a question of degree. Eegard must be had to all
the surrounding circumstances, and especially to the neighbour-
hood in which the alleged nuisance exists. In Bamford v.
Townley a Pollock, C. B., said: "I do not think that the
nuisance for which an action will He is capable of any legal
definition which will be applicable to all cases and useful in
deciding them. The question so entirely depends on the
surrounding circumstances—the place where, the time when,
the alleged nuisance, what, the mode of committing it, how
and the duration of it, whether temporary or permanent,
occasional or continual—as to make it impossible to lay down
any rule of law which will be applicable to every case, and
which will also be useful in assisting a jury to come to a satis-
factory conclusion ; it must at all times be a question of fact
with reference to all the circumstances of the case."
It is not always easy to determine what amount of personal inconvenience
is necessary to afford a right of action. There must be " an inconvenience
materially interfering with the ordinaryphysical comfort ofhuman existence,
not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but
according to plain, sober and simple notions among the English people." 2
If a man lives in a town, it is necessary that he should subject himself to the
consequences of those operations which are needed for trade and commerce, for
the enjoyment of property and for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town
and of the public at large. " If a man lives in a street where there are
numerous shops, and a shop is opened next door to him, which is carried
on in a fair and reasonable way, he has no ground for complaint because to
himself individually there may arise much discomfort from the trade carried
on in that shop." 3 But any unjustifiable act, which destroys or impairs
the ordinary comfort or amenity of a man's home to an appreciable extent,
is a nuisance. 4
So, too, excessive noise or vibration is a nuisance. 5 There is no definite
legal rule or measure as to what amount of annoyance caused thereby will
1
(1862) 3 B. & S. at p. 79.
a Per Knight-Bruce, V.-C, in Walter v. Selfe (1851), 4 De G. & S. at p. 322,
adopted in Saltan v. De Held (1851), 2 Sim. N. S. at p. 159 ; and see Fleming
v. Hislop (1886), 11 App. Cas. 686, 690 ; Christie v. Davey, [1893] a Ch. 316.
s Per Lord Westbury, L. 0., in St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865), 11
.H. L. Cas. at p. 650.
i J. Lyons % Sons v. Wtikins, [1899] 1 Ch. 255, jost, p. 632 ; and see s. 7 of the
Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), as amended by the
Trades Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Bdw. VII. c. 47), s. 2 ; and Walters v. Green,
[1899] 2 Oh. 696.
6 Jenkins v. Jackson (1888), 40 Ch. D. 71 ; Harrison v. Southwark and Vaunthall
Water Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 409 ; Christie v. Davey, [1893] 1 Ch. 316 ; Att.-ffen.
v. Cole # Son, [1901] 1 Ch. 205 ; Colwell v. St. Pancras Borough Covmeil, [1904] 1
Ch. 707.