- A man bought a property near a copper smelter.
- The vapours caused damage to trees & livestock.
- He brought an action against them.
- The judge directed the jury that a man cannot use his property to cause injury but everything must be looked at with a reasonable view. The law does not regard trifling inconvenience as actionable.
- Whether the direction was correct, in relation to nuisance
- The directions were correct.
- The copper smelter did create a nuisance.
- There is a distinction between a nuisance that creates injury versus one that causes discomfort. In the latter, whether this constitutes a nuisance depends on where it exists (e.g. a town is noisy).
- It is a question of compound facts and circumstances.
- The copper smelter was in a manufacturing area but the business was not carried on properly due to proximity to the town.
- Material injury to property and value of property; this was achieved.
The full text is available here:
Save this case