Classes of Specific Tort

1. Torts to Person
2. Tort to Property
3. Tort to both Person and Property
4. Torts to Personal Reputation and Reputation of Goods
5. Torts Affecting Interest in Economic, Social and Political Relations
6. Torts Affecting Interest in Domestic Relations
7. Abuse of Judicial Process
8. Conspiracy and Abdetment
9. Interests Pressing for Recognition

Questions

• ব্যাটরি কী এবং কী কী হলে ব্যাটরি হতে পারে বা এলিমেন্টগুলো কী কী??
• কী কী হলে এসল্ট হতে পারে বা এলিমেন্টগুলো কী কী?
• এসল্টেড পারসন কী কী রেমেডিস্‌ বা ডেম্যাজেস পেতে পারে?
• যে এসল্ট করেছে তার ডিফেন্স কী কী হতে পারে?
• নেগলিজেন্স সম্পর্কে লিখ।
• কী কী করলে নেগ্লিজেন্স হতে পারে?
• Duty of Care কীভাবে ডিটারমাইন করা যায়?
• Lord Atkin’s Test এর এক্সেপশন কী কী?
• যে Negligence করেছে তার ডিফেন্স কী কী হতে পারে?
• Trespass to land হয় কখন কখন?
• Nuisance হতে হলে কী কী এলিমেন্ট লাগবে বা কখন Nuisance হয় বলে ধরা হবে?
• Nuisance করলে তার বিপক্ষে কী কী রেমেডি পাওয়া যাবে?
• যে ব্যক্তি Nuisance করেছে তার ডিফেন্স কী কী হতে পারে?

Torts to Person

Battery

Definition of Battery in Law

The word “battery” originally means “beating,” but in law, it has a broader meaning. Battery in legal terms refers to the use of force against someone’s body without their consent. This forceful act can be hostile or unwanted touching. It can also mean causing something else to touch the person’s body without any legal reason to do so.

Interests Protected by Battery and Assault

Battery and assault protect a person’s rights in two main ways:

1. Freedom from Bodily Harm: This means protecting a person from being physically hurt.
2. Freedom from Insult: This means protecting a person from actions that can be insulting or degrading, even if they are not physically harmed.

For example, simply touching someone without their permission can be battery. Spitting in someone’s face, taking their fingerprints, or cutting their hair without consent are also examples of battery.

Various Ways of Committing Battery

Different Forms of Battery: Battery can happen in many different ways, such as:

• Physical Actions: Hitting, slapping, pushing, or stabbing someone.
• Using Objects: Throwing something at someone or shooting a bullet that hits them.
• Using Animals: Setting a dog on someone.
• Indirect Actions: Removing a chair so that someone falls when they try to sit, or taking an object that a person is holding or wearing.

Indirect Contact: Battery doesn’t always need direct physical contact with the person’s body. It can happen through contact with objects connected to the person. For example:

• Touching Clothes: If someone touches another person’s clothes without permission, it can be considered battery.
• Interfering with Objects: Upsetting a carriage or ladder the person is on, or whipping a horse that the person is riding, causing them to fall.
• Medical Procedures: Performing an internal examination on a woman without her consent is also considered battery.

Distinction Between Assault and Battery

What is Assault?

In law, assault means threatening to hurt someone. It’s like saying or doing something that makes another person believe they are about to be harmed. But importantly, no actual physical contact needs to happen.

Examples of Assault:

• Throwing something: If you throw a stone or water at someone but it doesn’t hit them, it’s assault.
• Pointing a gun: If you point a gun at someone, even if you don’t shoot, it’s assault.
• Removing a chair: If you pull a chair away from someone just before they sit down, and they think they’re going to fall, that’s assault.

What is Battery?

Battery is when you actually make physical contact with someone in a harmful or offensive way. This means you do something that causes physical harm or touches someone in a way that they do not like.

Examples of Battery:

• Throwing something and hitting: If the stone or water you threw hits the person, it becomes battery.
• Shooting the gun: If you point a gun and shoot, and the person is hit, it’s battery.
• Falling after the chair is moved: If the person falls and hits the ground after you moved the chair, it’s battery.

Key Differences

• Assault: Only the threat or attempt to hurt someone (no physical contact needed).
• Battery: Actual physical contact that harms or offends someone.

Relationship Between Assault and Battery

Often, an assault comes before a battery. You threaten (assault) and then actually make contact (battery). But, battery can happen without assault. For example:

• If someone hits you from behind without you seeing them, it’s battery because you didn’t have the chance to feel threatened first.

Summary

• Assault: Making someone scared they are going to be hurt.
• Battery: Actually hurting someone or touching them in a harmful way.
• Assault can lead to battery, but battery doesn’t always need to follow an assault.

Assault

Elements of Assault

1. The defendant acts: This means that the person being accused (the defendant) must have done something. It’s not just about having bad thoughts; there must be an actual action.
2. Intention to cause fear of harm: The defendant must have wanted to make the victim (the plaintiff) afraid that they were about to get hurt. The defendant doesn’t need to actually hurt the plaintiff, but they must intend to scare the plaintiff into thinking they will be hurt very soon.
3. Causing reasonable fear: The action of the defendant must make the plaintiff reasonably believe that they are about to be harmed. This means that a normal person in the same situation would also feel scared that they are about to be hurt.
4. It doesn’t matter if the defendant can actually harm the plaintiff: Even if the defendant is not strong enough or capable of harming the plaintiff, it’s still considered an assault if the plaintiff believes they will be harmed.
5. Words can cancel out the intention: Sometimes, what the defendant says can show that they didn’t actually mean to scare the plaintiff. For example, if someone raises a fist as if to hit someone but then immediately says, “I’m just joking,” it might not count as assault.

Legal Remedies/Damages

When the court decides the defendant has committed an assault, the plaintiff can get compensation (money) for different types of harm:

1. Personal suffering: Money for the pain and suffering the plaintiff experienced.
2. Loss of enjoyment of life: The plaintiff can ask for money if they can no longer enjoy activities they used to do because of the assault.
3. Actual money loss: If the assault caused the plaintiff to lose money, they can get compensated for that. For example, if they had medical bills or lost wages because they couldn’t work.
4. Reasonable expenses: The plaintiff can get money for expenses that were reasonable to spend because of the assault, like medical bills.
5. Probable Future loss: If the assault means the plaintiff won’t be able to work as well in the future, they can get money for the income they will lose.

Legal Defenses

The defendant can try to defend themselves against the assault charge by saying:

1. Self-defense: The defendant can say they only acted to protect themselves from harm.
2. Intoxication: The defendant can argue that they were drunk or under the influence of drugs and didn’t mean to scare the plaintiff.
3. Coercion: The defendant can claim they were forced to act because someone else threatened them with harm, like being forced to attack someone at gunpoint.

Burden of Proof

• Plaintiff’s responsibility: The person who claims they were assaulted (the plaintiff) has to prove that the assault happened. They must show the exact situation and evidence to convince the court.
• Court’s duty: The court has to look at all the evidence. If the court finds that the assault was not planned ahead of time, it can consider this as a factor that makes the situation less severe, even if the defendant didn’t specifically argue this.

Answer to the following question. (15)

You went to a market for buying groceries. While marketing, one person is screaming at you complaining that, you poke him by your elbow. You have no idea what is going on. Suddenly he said that, “if I were the criminal, I would have hit you here and break your nose”. Some other audiences try to stop him from doing this. There are noises everywhere and you avoid the crowd immediately.

• Is there any violation of legal rights by that person towards you in this case? (5)

• Is there any damage happened to you? (5)

• How might tort be happened in this case (if any)? (5)

Is there any violation of legal rights by that person towards you in this case? (5)

Yes, the person screaming at you might have violated your legal rights. Here’s why:

• Threat of violence: When the person said, “if I were the criminal, I would have hit you here and break your nose,” they made a threat. This can be considered as assault because it made you fear that you might get hurt.
• Reasonable fear: Even if they didn’t actually hit you, their words could have reasonably made you afraid that they might do it.
• Actions causing fear: The person’s actions, combined with their words, likely caused you to feel scared or worried about your safety.

So, by making you fear that you might be harmed, the person violated your legal right to feel safe.

Is there any damage happened to you? (5)

Even if you didn’t get physically hurt, you can still have experienced damage. Here’s how:

• Emotional distress: The incident might have made you feel very scared, stressed, or upset.
• Loss of enjoyment: You might have felt too worried or anxious to enjoy the rest of your day or your shopping trip.
• Potential future effects: You might feel afraid to go back to that market or be around crowds, affecting your normal activities.

These kinds of feelings and effects are considered damage, even if you weren’t physically harmed.

How might tort be happened in this case (if any)? (5)

A tort might have happened in this case because:

• Assault: The person’s threat to break your nose made you fear immediate harm. This fits the definition of assault, which doesn’t require actual physical contact, just the threat of it.
• Intention to cause fear: By saying those threatening words, the person likely intended to make you scared.
• Reasonable apprehension: You had a reasonable belief that you might be harmed, which is enough for an assault claim.

So, even without physical contact, the person’s actions and words created a situation where you felt threatened, which means a tort (assault) might have occurred.

Trespass to Land: Types of Trespass

What is Trespass to Land?

Trespass to land means someone enters or interferes with someone else’s land without permission. It’s like walking into someone’s house without asking. This is wrong because everyone has a right to control who comes onto their land.

Interest Protected

The main thing protected by trespass laws is exclusive possession. This means the person who owns or uses the land should be able to use it without anyone else physically interfering.

Possession of the Land

For someone to sue for trespass, they must have possession of the land. This means they are using the land or have the right to use it. They don’t have to own the land, but they must have control over it.

• Actual Possession: The person is physically using the land.
• Constructive Possession: The person has the right to use the land even if they aren’t physically there.

Only the person who has possession can sue for trespass. For example, if you rent an apartment, you can sue for trespass, not the landlord.

Jus Tertii

This term means “the right belongs to someone else”. In trespass cases, this defense usually doesn’t work. If you are in possession of the land, even if it’s not yours, you can still sue for trespass.

Exceptions include:

• If the defendant (the person being sued) is the true owner.
• If the plaintiff (the person suing) only claims a right to possess the land but isn’t actually using it.

Various Ways of Committing Trespass

1. Wrongful Entry: Entering land without permission. Even touching the land counts.
2. Remaining After Permission Ends: Staying on land after your right to be there ends. For example, staying in a park after it closes.
3. Placing Objects: Putting objects on someone else’s land without permission. This includes both physical objects like trash and less tangible things like smoke or fumes.
4. Through Animals: If your animals enter someone else’s land, it’s considered trespass.

Examples and Cases

• Entick v. Carrington: Any invasion of someone’s land is considered trespass.
• Wood v. Leadbitter: If you buy a ticket and stay after your right to be there ends, you are trespassing.
• Hurst v. Picture Theatres: If you are wrongly accused of not paying and thrown out, you can sue for damages.

Key Takeaways

• Trespass protects your right to use your land without others interfering.
• You don’t have to own the land, just have the right to use it.
• Trespass can be physical entry, staying too long, or placing objects.
• Even if someone mistakenly thinks they have the right, it’s still trespass.

Trespass to both Person and Property: Negligence, Nuisance

About Negligence

Definition

• Negligence is when someone fails to fulfill a legal duty to take care, which results in harm to another person.
• Lord Wright: Negligence involves duty, breach, and damage suffered by the person owed the duty.

Theories of Negligence

There are two main theories about the meaning of negligence:

1. Subjective Theory
   • Concept: Negligence is a state of mind.
   • Main Supporter: Salmond, along with Wharton, Street, and Winfield.
   • Explanation: According to this theory, negligence happens when a person is indifferent or does not pay attention to the possible outcomes of their actions. Unlike intentional wrongdoers, who want harmful outcomes, negligent people simply don’t care enough to avoid those outcomes.
2. Objective Theory
   • Concept: Negligence is not about the state of mind but about conduct.
   • Main Supporter: Pollock, along with Terry, Edgerton, Bevan, and Holmes.
   • Explanation: This theory states that negligence occurs when someone’s actions fall below what a “reasonable person” would do in similar circumstances. Even if the person tried hard to avoid harm, they can still be considered negligent if their actions don’t meet this standard.

Essential Elements

To prove negligence, four elements must be shown:

1. Breach: The defendant failed to fulfill that duty.
2. Causation: The breach caused harm to the plaintiff.
3. Duty: The defendant had a legal obligation to take care of the plaintiff.
4. Harm: The plaintiff suffered actual damage.

Legal Duty of Care

A legal duty of care means the defendant must avoid actions that could harm the plaintiff. For example, drivers have a duty to avoid causing injury to other road users and pedestrians.

Tests to Prove Duty of Care

Neighbor Principle/Lord Atkin’sTest

• Concept: One must take precautions to avoid harming those who are closely affected by their actions.
• Case Example: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] – The plaintiff got sick after drinking ginger beer with a decomposed snail in it. The manufacturer was liable because they should have foreseen the harm.

Exceptions to Lord Atkin’s Test

• Lawful Exercise of Legal Rights:
  • Meaning: If someone is using their legal rights correctly, they are not responsible for any harm that happens because of that.
  • Example: If a person builds a fence on their property line, which is their right, they are not responsible if it blocks a neighbor’s view.
• Omissions vs. Positive Acts:
  • Meaning: There is usually no duty to take action to help someone else, like saving them from danger.
  • Example: If you see someone drowning, you are not legally required to jump in and save them, even if you could.
• Statutory Duties:
  • Meaning: Sometimes, the law (a statute) clearly says what a person’s duties are. In these cases, the law decides how much care someone must take.
  • Example: A law might say that a company must put warning signs on dangerous machines. The company must follow what the law says exactly.
• Negligent Misrepresentations:
  • Meaning: If someone gives false information carelessly, they are only responsible if there is a special relationship between them and the person who got hurt.
  • Example: If a financial advisor gives wrong advice to a client, they might be liable because they have a special duty to give good advice.
• Animals Straying on the Highway:
  • Meaning: If a person’s non-dangerous domestic animal (like a cow or a sheep) wanders onto the road, the owner is not responsible for any accidents that happen.
  • Example: If a sheep escapes from a farm and causes a car accident, the farmer is not liable for the damages.
• Special Privileges and Immunities:
  • Meaning: Certain actions by government workers are protected, meaning these workers cannot be held responsible for them.
  • Example: A police officer who damages property while chasing a criminal might not be liable because they were performing their duty.

Revised Test/Two Stages Test

• Concept: Determining duty of care involves two stages:

1. Proximity: Is there a close enough relationship that the defendant should foresee their actions causing harm?
2. Policy Considerations: Are there any reasons to limit or negate the duty of care?

Current Test/Three-Stages Test

• Concept: This is the current approach to determining duty of care, established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990].

1. Foreseeability: Was it reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s actions could cause harm?
2. Proximity: Was there a close relationship between the parties?
3. Fairness, Justice, and Reasonableness: Is it fair to impose a duty of care?

Who is the “Reasonable Man”?

• Concept: The “reasonable man” is an ideal person who acts with ordinary prudence. The standard applies regardless of a person’s actual intelligence or experience.

Higher Standard of Duty for Certain Professionals

Professionals are expected to show the competence of an average member of their profession. For example:

• Medical Negligence: Doctors are compared to other doctors of the same specialism.
• Bolam Test: A doctor is not negligent if their actions are supported by a responsible body of medical opinion.

Defenses to Negligence

1. Assumption of Risk Assumption of Risk means that the plaintiff knew there was a risk of getting hurt but decided to take that risk anyway.
   • Knowingly: The plaintiff was aware of the risk. For example, they knew that riding a roller coaster could be dangerous.
   • Voluntarily: The plaintiff chose to take the risk on their own. They weren’t forced or tricked into it. They decided to ride the roller coaster because they wanted to, even though they knew it could be dangerous.
   Example: Imagine you’re at a baseball game. You know that sometimes baseballs can fly into the stands and hit people. If you decide to sit in the front row where it’s more likely to happen, you’re assuming the risk. If a ball hits you, you might not be able to blame the stadium because you knew the risk and chose to sit there anyway.
2. Contributory Negligence Contributory Negligence means that the plaintiff was also careless and this carelessness helped cause their own harm.
   • Plaintiff’s Negligence: The plaintiff did something or failed to do something that contributed to the accident or injury.
   • Contributed to the Harm: The plaintiff’s actions were part of the reason they got hurt.
   Example: Let’s say you’re walking and looking at your phone, not paying attention to where you’re going. If you walk into a hole in the sidewalk and get hurt, this is partly your fault because you weren’t paying attention. Even if the hole shouldn’t have been there, your own carelessness (not watching where you were going) helped cause the accident.

Nuisance

Definition

The word nuisance comes from the French word ‘nuire’, meaning to harm or offend. Nuisance is a tricky term to define exactly because whether something is a nuisance can depend on many factors like the current political, social, and economic conditions, and the perspectives of the people involved. However, for practical purposes, nuisance is usually defined as unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land that causes damage to the person complaining (the plaintiff).

Essential Elements of Nuisance

To prove a nuisance case, the following key points must be established:

1. Right to Use and Enjoyment of Land:
   • The person complaining (plaintiff) must have the right to use and enjoy the land. This means they should have some form of control or ownership over the land.
   • For example, a person living on the land (tenant) can sue for nuisance, but a temporary guest cannot.
2. Interference with Use and Enjoyment:
   • There must be a substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to use and enjoy their land. This interference can take various forms:
     • Encroachments: If someone builds a structure that overhangs onto the plaintiff’s land, causing problems like rainwater drainage issues or if tree branches or roots from a neighbor’s property extend into the plaintiff’s land.
     • Physical Damage: If activities like mining or construction on one’s land cause physical damage to a neighbor’s land, such as causing the land to sink or emitting harmful fumes that damage plants.
3. Unreasonable Interference:
   • Not every interference counts as a nuisance. The interference must be unreasonable. This depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
     • For example, slight noise from a neighbor’s radio might not be unreasonable. However, loud music at odd hours could be considered unreasonable.
     • In a court case, it was argued that showing a certain movie was a nuisance. The court ruled that the nuisance must be more than just a minor annoyance and must cause significant discomfort or harm to be considered legally actionable.
4. Damage to the Plaintiff:
   • Nuisance is not automatically considered harmful; the plaintiff must show actual damage.
   • For instance, if pollution from a factory harms plants on someone’s land, that’s considered damage. There was a case where smelting factory emissions damaged plants on a neighbor’s property, and the factory was held responsible.

Public vs. Private Nuisances

Public Nuisance

1. Affects the Public: A public nuisance impacts the community or a large group of people. It is not limited to one or a few individuals.
   • Examples: Pollution of air or water, spreading diseases, selling unsafe food, loud noises, or anything that affects public health and safety.
   • Morals and Convenience: Acts like displaying obscene content or making loud noises in public also count as public nuisances because they affect public morals and convenience.
2. Proof Requirement: To prove a public nuisance, it’s enough to show that a significant part of the public is affected. You don’t need to prove that every person is impacted.
3. Legal Consequences: Public nuisance is a criminal offense under Indian law (Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code). This means it’s handled in criminal courts, and you cannot directly sue for damages in a civil court.
4. Cannot be Legalized: You cannot make a public nuisance legal, no matter how long it has been happening.
5. Remedies: The remedy for a public nuisance is typically a criminal prosecution. However, if it causes specific harm to an individual beyond what the general public suffers, that person can seek a civil remedy (like damages or an injunction).

Private Nuisance

1. Affects Individuals: A private nuisance affects one person or a small group of people, particularly concerning their property.
   • Examples: Throwing trash on someone’s property, blocking their sunlight, making excessive noise, or creating unpleasant smells that affect a person’s enjoyment of their home.
2. Legal Action: Private nuisances are treated as civil matters, and the affected person can sue for damages (money compensation) or an injunction (a court order to stop the nuisance).
3. Can be Legalized: If a private nuisance has been happening for a long time without any objection, it might become legal through a process called prescription.
4. Remedies: The affected person can take civil action to get compensation or to stop the nuisance. They do not need to prove harm to the public, only to themselves.

Defenses to Nuisance Claims

In the context of nuisance, a nuisance is an act that interferes with someone’s use or enjoyment of their property. Here are some key defenses used to respond to claims of nuisance:

1. Grant
   • Explanation: If the nuisance occurs under the terms of an agreement or license (known as a “grant”) provided by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has no remedy. Essentially, if you allow someone to do something that might be a nuisance, you can’t later sue them for it.
   • Principle: This is based on the principle of “Volenti non fit injuria,” meaning “to a willing person, no injury is done.”
2. Authority of Statute
   • Explanation: If a nuisance is created by activities that are legally authorized by a statute, then it is not considered a private nuisance.
   • Details:
     • If the law requires the activity (mandatory), the defendant is usually not liable.
     • If the law permits the activity but doesn’t require it (permissive), the defendant must still consider the interests of others and avoid causing unnecessary harm.
3. Prescription
   • Explanation: A right to commit a private nuisance can be acquired by continuous, open, and uninterrupted use over a period of twenty years. This is the special right you get after doing something continuously, openly, and without interruption for 20 years. It’s like earning the right because you’ve been doing it for so long and no one stopped you.
   • Condition: This right is known as a prescriptive right and is similar to acquiring an easement.

Remedies for Nuisance

There are three main remedies for nuisance:

1. Abatement
   • Explanation: The person suffering from the nuisance can take direct action to remove it without going to court. For example, they can cut overhanging branches that intrude onto their property.
   • Conditions: The removal must be peaceful and should not cause harm. Notice may need to be given before entering someone else’s property.
2. Damages
   • Explanation: The affected party can seek monetary compensation for the harm caused by the nuisance.
   • Details: The amount of damages is usually based on the reduction in property value caused by the nuisance. For ongoing nuisances, new claims can be made as long as the nuisance continues.
3. Injunction
   • Explanation: This is a court order that requires the defendant to stop the nuisance.
   • Conditions: An injunction is granted when the nuisance is continuous and monetary compensation is not adequate. However, if the harm is minor and can be adequately compensated, or if stopping the nuisance would be overly harsh on the defendant, the court might choose to award damages instead.

Non-Defenses to Nuisance Claims

Certain arguments do not provide valid defenses against a nuisance claim:

1. Compliance with Standards
   • Explanation: Even if a structure like a stable or latrine meets municipal standards, it can still be a nuisance if it unreasonably interferes with someone’s use of their property.
2. Plaintiff Came to the Nuisance
   • Explanation: It’s no defense to say that the plaintiff moved to the location where the nuisance already existed. The rights remain the same regardless of who was there first.
3. Reasonable Use of Property
   • Explanation: Using your property reasonably is not a defense if it still causes significant discomfort or damage to a neighbor’s property.
4. Benefit to the Public
   • Explanation: The fact that the nuisance benefits the general public does not excuse it if it causes substantial harm to an individual.
5. Lack of Alternative Location
   • Explanation: It’s no defense to claim that the nuisance-causing activity has no other suitable location. The activity cannot be allowed if it causes a nuisance, unless there is an agreement or statutory authority.
6. Combined Actions
   • Explanation: A defendant can’t argue that their action alone would not have caused the nuisance. If combined actions from multiple parties result in a nuisance, all involved parties can be held liable.
7. Care and Skill Used
   • Explanation: In cases of ongoing nuisance, using all possible care and skill to prevent it is not a valid defense. The responsibility is to avoid causing a nuisance altogether.

Differences between Nuisance and Trespass:

1. Origin: Nuisance originated from “action on the case,” which means it’s about the consequences of someone’s actions. Trespass, on the other hand, comes from the “writ of trespass,” which is about the direct harm caused by entering someone’s property.
2. Scope: Nuisance is about interfering with someone’s use or enjoyment of their land, while Trespass is about physically entering someone’s property. Nuisance can happen without anyone entering the property, whereas Trespass always involves entering the property.
3. Actionability: Trespass is considered a wrongdoing in itself, so the person affected can take legal action immediately. Nuisance, however, requires proof of actual damage or harm caused to the person affected before they can take legal action.

Differences Between Nuisance and Negligence

In-Depth Differences

1. Distinct Cases:
   • Nuisance and negligence can sometimes be entirely separate issues. For example, if a person blocks an ancient source of light to another’s property, it’s considered a nuisance. If a surgeon performs surgery carelessly, it’s considered negligence. These two scenarios do not overlap.
2. Plaintiff’s Requirement:
   • For nuisance, the person complaining (plaintiff) must have a legal right or title to the property that is being interfered with. For example, they must own or have a lease on the property.
   • For negligence, the plaintiff does not need to have any title to the land. They could be anyone harmed by the defendant’s lack of care.
3. Proving the Case:
   • In a nuisance case, the plaintiff must prove that they were harmed or disturbed by the defendant’s actions. The duty of the defendant to not cause nuisance is assumed.
   • In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to take care of something and that the defendant failed to do so, causing harm.
4. Reasonable Care:
   • In nuisance cases, whether the defendant took reasonable care is not always important. Even if the defendant took care, they might still be liable if their actions caused a nuisance. However, in some cases where negligence is part of the nuisance, like in the Wagon Mound Case (No. 2), reasonable care matters.
   • In negligence cases, if the defendant can show that they took reasonable care to avoid causing harm, they are usually not liable.
5. Defenses:
   • In nuisance cases, it is not a defense to say that the plaintiff moved to the place where the nuisance already existed.
   • In negligence cases, if the plaintiff also behaved carelessly and contributed to the harm (contributory negligence), the defendant can use this as a defense.
6. Statutory Authorization:
   • No action for nuisance is allowed if the act causing the nuisance is authorized by law, unless the act was done carelessly.
   • This point does not typically apply to negligence cases.