Temple Law Quarterly
Although the word "nuisance" is an expression of deprecation, it is, even so, more abused than abusive. It has been reviled by Dean Prosser as "a sort of legal garbage can" and snubbed, as a word, by the Restatement of Torts. Its best friends, on the other hand, have blown it up to grotesque proportions. One authority states that nuisance is "regarded as incapable of precise definition so as to fit all cases," but nevertheless wades helpfully in: ". . . In its broadest sense, it is that which annoys or gives trouble or vexation, that which is offensive or noxious; anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage." This does, of course, "fit all cases," and it is little wonder that "nuisance" was the successfully asserted cause of action when a cockroach was baked into a pie. The need for a less inclusive definition is clearly indicated.
Monroe H. Freedman,
Nuisance, Ultrahazardous Activities, And The Atomic Reactor, 30 Temp. L.Q. 77
Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/706