## Facts

- Turnley operated brick kilns on his land near Bamford’s house.
- The kiln burning produced dense smoke and noxious fumes.
- The smoke and fumes materially interfered with the comfort and health of Bamford and his household, and affected neighbors.
- The surrounding land had been sold as building land; brick-earth had been advertised as advantageous for building, and bricks had previously been made in the area.
- Bamford brought an action in private nuisance, alleging the kiln smoke rendered his house unfit for healthy or comfortable occupation.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant can avoid liability for private nuisance by showing the activity was a “reasonable use” of the defendant’s land, even when it substantially interferes with a neighbor’s comfort and health.
2. Whether locality and asserted utility of the activity (e.g., building-related brickmaking) bar recovery when nuisance is otherwise established.

## Decision

- The Exchequer Chamber reversed the judgment for Turnley and rejected the trial direction based on a “reasonable use of land” defense.
- The court held that the prior approach allowing a defendant’s “reasonable use” to defeat a proven nuisance was erroneous.
- Judgment was entered for Bamford with nominal damages (40 shillings).

## Legal Principles

- An action lies for private nuisance when, considering all the circumstances, the interference is sufficiently substantial to constitute a nuisance under ordinary law.
- Once substantial nuisance is proved, it is not a proper defense that the defendant’s conduct was a convenient, profitable, or “reasonable” use of the defendant’s own land.
- Locality is relevant to evaluating the character and gravity of the interference, but it does not create immunity where substantial interference is shown.
- Ordinary, reciprocal interferences incident to common and ordinary occupation of land—when carried out in a convenient manner—are generally not actionable; more serious interferences require compensation.
- Public benefit does not justify uncompensated private harm; if an activity yields net gain, compensation to those harmed is treated as part of the activity’s cost.

## Conclusion

The court held that private nuisance depends on substantial interference assessed in context, and that a defendant cannot defeat liability merely by labeling the activity a reasonable or beneficial use of land; ordinary everyday interferences may be tolerated, but substantial harms to neighbors must be compensated.


Bamford v. Turnley, 122 Eng. Rep. 25 (Exch. Ch. 1862)