Odger's English Common Law

LIABILITY OF LANDLORD. 511
diverted the water from the plaintiff's print works, and re-erectedl it after
the plaintiff had removed it, the Court held that the plaintiff was rightly
nonsuited ; and that, as there was no evidence of acquiescence by the
defendants in the continuation of the nuisance, they could not, be held
responsible for the act of their lessee. J
Where one employs another to do an act which may be done in a lawful
manner, and the latter in doing it unnecessarily commits a public nuisance
and injury results to a third person, the employer will not be responsible
in damages for such injury. 2
do an unlawful act
—
If however A. employs B., a contractor, to
e.g., to erect a nuisance in the public highway—which
B. does by his workmen and servants, A. will be answerable in an action of
tort for damage resulting to a third party. 3
A private nuisance generally arises on the premises of
the defendant, and its baneful consequences extend thence
to the premises occupied by the plaintiff. It may thus cause
damage either to person or to property—in some cases to
both. As a general rule, the injury to health or other
inconvenience to a person is the result of his occupation
of premises in close proximity to the nuisance. In such
a case the owner of the property may also have a cause
of action, if the proximity of the nuisance has diminished
the saleable value of his property. The acts of several
persons may together constitute a nuisance, which the Court
will restrain, though the damage occasioned by the acts of
any one, if taken alone, would be inappreciable. 4
Defences.
We have already discussed, under the head of " Criminal
Law," the defences which can be raised to an indictment
for a public nuisance. 5
These defences are also available in
a civil action for damages arising out of either a public or
a private nuisance. It is only necessary here to refer briefly
to the following.
It will be a defence to any action of nuisance if the
defendant can show that he was authorised by statute to do
1 Saxby v. Manchester, Sheffield, $c, By. Co. (1869), L. E. i C. P. 198.
2 Mills v. Bolton (1857), 2 H. & N. 14 ; Williams v. Jones (1865), 3H.SC. 602.
8 Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Consumers' Co. (1853), 2 E. & B. 767 ; Hole v. Sitting-
bourne and Sheerness By. Co. (1861), 6 H. & N. 488.
1 Thorpe v. Brumfitt (1873), h. H. 8 Oh. 650.
• See ante, pp. 243, 244.