Public Nuisance Essay

374 Words2 Pages
Issue The issue here is whether Morris could be held liable for the creation of potholes as a public nuisance. Law A public nuisance is an act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort of the public. Normally it is only the Attorney General who can instigate civil proceeds in respect of the creation of a public nuisance . In Thomas v Num it was held that the prevention to pass on a public highway, was an unlawful interference with the public’s right to use the highway. In Cunningham v McGrath Borthers Kingsmill Moore J stated that any obstruction of the public highway is a public nuisance. A public nuisance may also be created by carry on trade which causes discomfort to the general public as seen in AG v PYA Quarries . Here blasting and other quarrying operations gave rise to a nuisance. However, a member of the public can bring a nuisance action where the nuisance caused them particular damage over and above that suffered by others. This was well shown in Boyd v Great Northern Railway where a doctor sued for public nuisance because he was delayed on the train which amounted in him suffering particular damage. This was also seen in Smith v Wilson where the plaintiff proved special damage caused from the nuisance and succeeded in public nuisance. It is submitted that Morris is leaving himself open to an action by the Attorney General under public nuisance given the extent of the damage of the roads. The Attorney General could argue a strong case on the basis that the facts of this case are easily applicable to the principles set out in Cunningham. It was also shown in Molly v Offaly Country Council that damaging a roads surface amounts to dangering the highway. Morris could also be liable to a private action in tort in respect of a nuisance caused to one of his neighbour. Liability will not lie with the County

More about Public Nuisance Essay

Open Document