The remedy in case of public nuisance is to charge the party. The limits of tort may not be clear because of the gap between public and private nuisances and the existence of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy of Lancaster University popularized the idea that Rylands is a separate, though related, offense. This is still a topic of discussion and is rejected by others (the main distinction in Rylands is about “escapes on earth”, and so arguably the only difference is the type of harassment, not the type of civil fault). Last but not least, the benefits include the fact that the measures are not limited to the specific types of harassment that constitute “legal harassment”. The remedies available in cases of private harassment are measures to prohibit the exploitation or continuation of the activity or condition or to collect damages. If the elimination of injunctive harassment would result in undue hardship to the community (the closure of factories that would deprive community workers of their livelihoods), it is the usual practice of courts to refuse an injunction and award money for the harm suffered. There is a general rule that a landlord who rents a property is not responsible for nuisances that occur after the occupant has taken control of the land. There is an exception where the lease is granted for a purpose that constitutes a nuisance, as in Tetley v.
Chitty,[26] or where the harassment is caused by the failure to repair the premises, as in Wringe v. Cohen. [27] [28] The landlord is also liable if the nuisance existed before the lease of the property and knew or should have known about it. [29] Under the principle of vicarious liability, a landowner may also be held liable for the actions of its employees; Matania v. Provincial National Bank[30] also concluded that, in certain circumstances, they could be held liable for the activities of independent contractors. [31] If a jurisdiction wants to regulate harassment, it must first define the term. In general, a nuisance is something that annoys – wear and tear on the nerves caused by persistent discomfort. This can cause anger and affect comfort and peace of mind.
In a regulatory environment, the term “harassment” includes anything that leads to a violation of one`s own legal rights. In Scotland, there is no recognised distinction between public and private harassment. The law that constitutes harassment is essentially the same as in England. A list of legal harassment is contained in the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867 and the amending Acts. The remedy in case of harassment is prohibition or action. [32] Harassment is an area of tort law in English law, divided into two torts; private nuisance, if the defendant`s actions “cause substantial and unreasonable interference with the land of a [plaintiff] or its use or enjoyment of that land,”[1] and public nuisance, if the defendant`s actions “substantially interfere with the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty`s subjects”; [2] Public nuisance is also a crime. Both offenses have been present since the time of Henry III and have been influenced over the years by a variety of philosophical changes, first relaxing and then much stricter, protecting less of an individual`s rights. Any tort requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant`s actions caused unreasonable interference and, in certain situations, the defendant`s intent may also be taken into account. A key difference is that private harassment does not allow an asylum seeker to claim personal harm suffered, unlike public nuisance. A general nuisance is punishable as an offence under the common law, where no special provision is made by law. In modern times, many of the old inconveniences of the common law have been legislated. It is not a defence for a master or employer that harassment is caused by the actions of his servants when such acts are part of their employment, even though these acts are committed without his knowledge and contrary to his orders.
Nor is it disputed that the nuisance has existed for a long time, for no passage of time justifies a public nuisance. [32] There are several defences to allegations of harassment; In Nichols v. Marsland,[67] for example, “Act of God” was accepted as a defence. [28] One defence is the “20-year limitation period”, which applies to private harassment but not to public harassment. If private harassment lasts 20 years, it becomes legal by statute of limitations, provided that the defendant can prove that he was sued and that the plaintiff knew about it. One limitation is that the 20 years are from the moment the activity became a nuisance, not from the moment the activity began. In Sturges v. Bridgman,[48] the applicant, a doctor, lived next door to a “confectionery.” The vibrations and noises emanating from this company lasted more than 20 years without disturbing the doctor, and the doctor only complained after building a consultation room in his garden.
It was established that the actual harassment only began with the construction of the consultation room, and the activity began to influence the physician, but not at the beginning of the activity. [68] A second objection is the legal authority when an activity is authorized by law; This applies to both public and private harassment. This also applies if the activity is not carried out directly in accordance with the law, but intra vires. In Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd,[69] the defendant was authorized by an Act of Parliament to construct an oil refinery. The Act did not provide explicit permission to operate it, and after it came into force, the plaintiff argued that it caused nuisance through odour and noise.