Odger's English Common Law

508 PRIVATE NTJISANCE.
do no more damage there than is absolutely necessary to put a
stop to the annoyance which he experiences. 1
To pollute a stream in such a manner as to drive away the fish and to
damage the spawning beds is a nuisance, for which the owner of a right of
fishing in the stream can maintain an action at common law. 2
So, where
the defendants impregnated the water of a running stream with sulphuric
acid and other deleterious matters, which corroded and destroyed the boilers
and other parts of the machinery in the plaintiff's mill which was further
down the stream, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. 3
Where a tree on one man's land spreads its branches so that they overhang
the land of his neighbour, this is a nuisance, which entitles the
neighbour to lop the branches so far as they overhang, though they may
have done so for more than twenty years. 4
A mere omission to perform a duty may create a nuisance. Thus, for
instance, if my neighbour is bound to scour a ditch or cleanse and keep
in repair a drain, and by his omission to do so my land is overflowed
and my goods are damaged, this is an actionable nuisance, whether his
omission be intentional or negligent.
There is a large class of cases of private nuisance which
is governed by the principle laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher:'
That case decided that a person, who for his own purposes brings
on to his own land and collects and keeps there anything
•likely to do injury if it escapes, is prima facie answerable
for all the natural consequences of its escape. He can only
excuse himself by showing that the escape was due to the
plaintiff's fault or was the consequence of the act of God,
vis major or inevitable accident.
Thus, if a man for his own purposes collects water on his land in an
artificial reservoir, he is under an absolute duty to keep it there at his peril,
not merely a duty to take all proper and prudent precautions to keep it
there. 6
So, where the defendant placed upon his land an artificial mound
or embankment, it was held that it was his duty to prevent water from
running off it on to the plaintiff's land and rendering his house damp. 7
1 A private individual has no right to abate a public uuisance, unless he has
sustained particular damage, sufficient to entitle him to bring an action of tort
^Dimes v. Petley (1850), 15 Q. B. 276 ; Arnold v. Molhrooh (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 96.
2 Fitzgerald v. Firbank, [1897] 2 Ch. 96.
3 Pennington v. Brinsop Hall Coal Co. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 769 ; Ormerod v. Todmorden
Mill Co. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 155 ; and see the Rivers Pollution Prevention
Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 75).
* Lemmon v. Webb, [1895] A. C. 1 ; Millt v. Broolter, [1919] 1 K. B. 555 ; and
see Panting v. Noakes, [1894] 2 Q. B. 281.
5 (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330. '
6 Rylands v. Fletcher, suprd. This will not be so where a man brings water on
to his land for public purposes : Madras By. Co. v. Zemindar of Carvatenagarum
(1874), L. K. 1 Indian App. Cas. 364.
' Hurdman v. 2V. E. By. Co. (1878), 3 C. P. D. 168 ; Broder v. SaUlard (1876),
2 Ch. D. 692.
: