The right to maintain a private nuisance may, in certain circumstances, be obtained by prescription. W. G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, Ky. 1953, 254 S.W.2d 720, 723; 39 Am.Jur. 478 (Nuisances, § 202); 66 C.J.S. Nuisances §§ 91-101, pp. 849-853. But where the annoyance is of the character described in this case "the rule is more theoretical than practical, because of the inherent difficulties in establishing such a right by proof."

A private nuisance "affects an individual or a limited number of individuals," while a public nuisance "affects the public at large." W.G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, 254 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Ky. 1953). The fact that OVEC seeks monetary damages in the form of civil penalties does not alter the Court's analysis because the recovery of civil penalties under the CAA "first requires a 'declaration' or determination" that the Clean Air Act and/or Kentucky's SIP has been violated.

A nuisance can be either private or public. Brockman v. Barton Brands, Ltd., 2009 WL 4252914 (W.D.Ky. Nov. 25, 2009) (citing W.G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, 254 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Ky.1953)). While a private nuisance affects only an individual or limited number of individuals, a public nuisance affects the public at large.

Kentucky recognizes two types of nuisance claims: public and private. Dickens v. Oxy Vinyls, LP, 631 F.Supp.2d 859, 865 (W.D.Ky.2009) (citing W.G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, 254 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Ky.1953)). Here, the Plaintiffs assert private nuisance claims.

In Kentucky, there are two types of nuisance: private and public. W.G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, 254 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Ky. 1953). A private nuisance affects an individual or a limited number of individuals, while a public nuisance affects the public at large.

In Kentucky there are two types of nuisances: private and public. W.G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, 254 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Ky. 1953). A private nuisance affects an individual or a limited number of individuals, while a public nuisance affects the public at large.

Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Arnett, Ky., 390 S.W.2d 187. Our decisions have noted that the matter of admission of such photographs lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, but this is not to say that failure to admit such pictures when a proper foundation is laid may not be reversible error. Cf. Robinette v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways, Ky., 380 S.W.2d 78; W. G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Jones, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 720, 723. What has been said is equally applicable to the appellant's tendered photograph of the residence located on a lot deemed as a comparable sale.

As to one of the appellants alone, the W. G. Duncan Coal Company, it is contended that a prescriptive right has been acquired to discharge pollutants into Pond River, by reason of continued use of the stream for such purposes by that company for more than 15 years before commencement of the action. Reliance is placed upon W. G. Duncan Coal Company v. Jones, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 720, 721, 723, wherein such a right was recognized. The Jones case, however, limits such a right to use "for the same purpose, to the same extent, and under the same circumstances and conditions."