Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
56 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What do land torts seek to protect? |
An Individual's ability to use and enjoy their land freely without unwanted/unwarranted interference from others |
|
|
What is the purpose of Private Nuisance actions? |
- Protect from indirect interference, actionable only with proof of damage. - Protect property rights - if you have no right to enjoy land/things there is no nuisance. Those with interests can sue dependent on type of land - Regulate neighbor relationships/conflicts defining mutual rights/ obligations - Can include actions for physical (actual) damage, interference with amenity interests (use & enjoyment) and encroachment - Should be consequence based in theory |
|
|
What are Conaghan & Mansell's views of the tort of private nuisance? |
It is often viewed as a minor tort with minimal implications or impact beyond cozy world of neighborhood squabbles or ordinary people against industry Do not feel this accurately reflect its development, which they describe as 'sinister' |
|
|
“There is perhaps no more impenetrable jungle inthe entire law than that which surrounds the word nuisance” - Dean Prosser, Discuss |
Private Nuisance is not yet a coherent tort, described by scholars and judges as lacking coherent definitions/goals/purposes |
|
|
Hunter v Canary Wharf Facts: 690 claims made against D. C lived in the Isle of Dogs, complained the erection of D's Tower interfered with their television reception. Also claims against third party for excessive dust during construction. Some C were owners/tenants of properties, many had no proprietary interest (children/relations/lodgers/spouses...). Held: No right of action for interference with the television reception, & interest in property is required to bring an action in nuisance. |
Lord Hoffman: “...the type of interference...cannot as a matter of law constitute an actionable nuisance. This... applies equally to interference with the passage of light or air or radio signals or to the obstruction of a view. The general principle is that at common law anyone may build whatever he likes upon his land. ...owner's right to build can be restrained only by covenant or the acquisition... on adjoining land.” Lord Hunter: Nuisance of 3 kinds; by encroachment on neighbor's land, direct physical injury and by interference with right to quiet enjoyment |
|
|
Khorasanjian v Bush Facts: C harassed by D, who threatened her with violence and pestered her with calls at her parents/grandparents house. Obtained injunction against to prevent him “using violence to, harassing, pestering or communicating”. D appealed as harassing /pestering/communicating didn't constitute a tort, C had no course of action Held: appeal dismissed |
Dillon LJ: "it is ridiculous if in this present age the law is that the making of deliberately harassing and pestering telephone calls to a person is only actionable in the civil courts if the recipient of the calls happens to have the freehold or a leasehold proprietary interest in the premises in which he or she has received the calls.” Overruled by Hunter v Canary Wharf in so far as it holds that a mere licensee can sue in private nuisance. |
|
|
What hurdles are associated with trying to ground a claim in nuisance? |
1. Who can sue/be sued/for what One must establish they have a right to sue based on interest in land. Neighbors can be sued 2. Emanation in principle anything is capable of amounting to nuisance, 'something' must move from neighbor's land to another 3. Showing D is an unreasonable user reasonable interferences will not amount to nuisance 4. Possible defences |
|
|
Malone v Laskey Facts: claimant was injured when vibrations from an engine on an adjoining property caused a bracket to come loose and the cistern to fall on her in the lavatory. Held: She was unsuccessful in her claim as she did not have a proprietary interest in the house. Her husband was a mere licensee through his employment as a manager. |
Private nuisance is essentially a land based tort. In order to bring a claim in private nuisance, a claimant must have an interest in the land in which he asserts his enjoyment or use has been unreasonably interfered with. Departed from in Khorasanjian, reinstated in Canary Wharf |
|
|
McKenna v British Aluminum ltd Facts: Over 30 C sued in nuisance over thenoise and fumes, some of the children had no interest in the land. Throughimplementation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, their claim was not struckout. Held: Neuberger J argued claimants had an arguablecase and that this restrictive aspect of the common law should be extended inlight of the HRA |
Non-proprietors may claim under Art 8 in respect of invasive activities of neighboring landowners in way that they cannot pursue in Rylands v Fletcher or nuisance. So the lower threshold for establishing an interest as required by Article 8 opens the field for non-proprietors to sue in nuisance and Rylands, bringing in train wider remedies available to wider classes of suitors. Neuberger J: in order to give Art 8 any teeth there must be a power to grant damages in respect of a breach of the right to respect for a person's private family life or home. "It would be rather a peculiar right if all one could claim was an injunction or declaration". |
|
|
What remedies are associated with claims in nuisance? |
Partial or full injunction can be awarded - stop neighbors doing things on their land (primary remedy) Damages can be awarded to compensate property damage/loss of amenity (can only claim for either type of harm done to property). Like negligence, liability in nuisance arises where damage was reasonably foreseeable. May also be able to claim under article 8 ECHR Abatement - 'self help' remedy, not without risk |
|
|
What are the implications of HRA 1998? |
Claimants may be able to receive damages under Article 8 ECHR - Powell and Rayner v UK: article 8 right violated due to noise pollution (not covered by tort), though was found that airport was modern necessity justifying interference. Lopez Ostra v Spain was first time 'environmental case' succeeded A different approach is now required if an activity complained of is carried out by a public authority in the public interest |
|
|
Bone v Seale Facts: P owned & occupied 2 adjoining properties. Claimed damage for nuisance by smell. Damages at first instance were reduced on appeal Held: right to sue in public nuisance linked to correct measure of damages. Was no evidence of any diminution in market value ofeither of the two adjoining properties |
Stephenson LJ: ‘difficult to find ananalogy to damages for interference with the enjoyment of property. In thiscase, efforts to prove diminution in the value of the property as a result ofthis persistent smell over the years failed. The damages awarded ...were damages simply for loss of amenity ... Is it possible to equate loss of sense of smell as a result of thenegligence of a defendant motor driver with having to put up with positivesmells...created by a negligent neighbor? There is, asit seems to me, some parallel" in both amenity cases |
|
|
Andréa v Selfridge & Co ltd Facts: P had hotel. D was demolishing and rebuilding properties. P complained, judge found, that by reason of the operations,which involved noise & dust, there was a substantial interference with thecomfort of the P in the reasonable occupation and use,such that an actionable nuisance would beconstituted. Held: Nothing abnormal in construction to justify a claim in nuisance |
'..when one is dealing with temporary operations... everybody has to put up with a certainamount of discomfort, because operations of that kind cannot be carried on atall without a certain amount of noise and a certain amount of dust. Therefore,the rule with regard to interference must be read subject to thisqualification..., that in respect ofoperations of this character, such as demolition and building, if they arereasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps are taken to ensurethat no undue inconvenience is caused to neighbors, whether from noise, dust,or other reasons, the neighbors must put up with it.’ |
|
|
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd Facts: P had standing to sue, should be entitled to recover in nuisance for damage to chattels Held: Veale J started from the position of the‘ordinary man’ in considering whether an activity was in conformity with thecharacter of the area: ‘who may well like peace and quiet but will notcomplain, for instance, of the noise of traffic if he chooses to live on a mainstreet in an urban center" |
Veale J started from position of 'ordinary man' living in neighborhood to decide what was reasonable Economic losses (ex; profit loss) recoverable only where consequence of claimant's liability to use their land to make profits; i.e. consequential upon damage to property interest may be recoverable but not 'pure' economic loss |
|
|
Wagon Mound 2 Facts: court looked to nature of D's activity to find the duty of care owed, weighed social value and costs. Held: D were liable for damage, which was only very remote |
Lord Reid: The riskmust be real’ in the sense that a reasonable person ‘would not brush [it] asideas far-fetched’: ‘But it does not follow that, no matter what the circumstancesmay be, it is justifiable to neglect a risk of such a small magnitude. Areasonable man would only neglect such a risk if he had some valid reason fordoing so, ...He would weigh the risk against the difficulty of eliminating it . . . Aperson must be regarded as negligent if he does not take steps to eliminate arisk which he knows or ought to know is a real risk and not a mere possibilitywhich would never influence the mind of a reasonable man.’ |
|
|
CambridgeWater Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc. Facts: D owed leather tanning business. Spillage of small quantities of solvents occurred over a long period of time, seeped through floor unto soil below. Made their way to borehole owned by C's water company. Water contaminated at unsafe levelHeld: Not liable as damage was too remote |
Foreseeability of damage pre-requisite of liability in actionsof nuisance, added fourth requirement to Rylands v Fletcher Lord Goff: ordinarily “only able to claim damages in respect of personal injury where he can provesuch foreseeability...it is difficult to see why... he should be in a stronger position to claim for damages forinterference with the enjoyment of his land". Whether harm/escape must be foreseeable unclear, generally damage resulting must be foreseeable only. Questioned whether Ryland was best seen as analytically distinct from nuisance or as two parts of the same thing |
|
|
Berent v Family Mosaic Housing Facts: C sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by the roots of place trees on neighboring land for which D was responsible Held: COA agreed that it would have been unreasonable to require removal of trees with amenity value from an Islington street on a purely precautionary basis, prior to the occurrence of actual damage caused by the roots. |
Reasonable foreseeability of damage could not be separated from the enquiry what steps were reasonable to take in the light of the reasonably foreseeable risk. |
|
|
What is the matrix of factors used to define 'reasonable users' of land? |
Always considered: - Intensity (duration, frequency and timing of interferences) - Whether exceeded threshold of what must be put up with by neighbors - Substantial interference for injunction Sometimes considered: depends on type of claim - Nature of locality Sometimes considered: if relevant - Sensitivity of claimant, test for nuisance is objective - Intention of defendant, if done in bad faith |
|
|
Kennaway v Thompson Facts: D member of motorboat racing club, such water-sports having been carried out since early 1960s. 1972, C moved nearby. Frequency of races increased, and used as venue for national and international races. C brought claim, awarded damages but no injunction Held: on appeal, junction was granted |
Miller v Jackson's allowance of discretion to judges when granting remedies should only be used in exceptional circumstances “Interventionby injunction is only justified when the irritating noise causes inconveniencebeyond what other occupiers in the neighborhood can be expected to bear” –Lawton LJ |
|
|
Crown River Cruise v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd Facts: D conducted firework display. Burning debris landed on nearby garbage bag, which caught fire. Held: D liable despite nuisance only lasting 20 minutes |
Must be a substantial interference for aninjunction, not the same in cases where damages are awarded for physical damagecaused |
|
|
Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd Facts: D manufactured food ingredients on industrial estate. C operated manufacturing business 2 doors down from D, and employees complained of smells emanating from D's premises Held: Found for D and appeal dismissed |
Mummery LJ: "First, the deputyjudge was entitled to attach significance to the location of the premises andthe character of the Crownhill Industrial Estate...which waspermitted on both planning grounds and by the user covenant in its lease. Theactivities in Unit 20 were carried on without objection or intervention onenvironmental or health and safety grounds by the relevant statutoryauthorities. While those matters are obviously not conclusive against theexistence of a private nuisance, they are relevant indicators of the levels ofdiscomfort and inconvenience caused by the smell." Locality is relevant in amenity interests |
|
|
Sturges v Bridgman Facts: D ran confectionary shop, operating noisy pestle and mortar. Had done so for 20 years but had no neighboring property so no complaint. C but a consulting room for his physician practice Held: use of land prior to the construction of consulting room was not preventable or actionable and therefore was not capable of founding a prescription right |
'Clock' on 20 years defence starts to run when claimant becomes aware of nuisance |
|
|
St. Helens Smelting Co v Tipping Facts: C owned manor house with 1300 acres of land short distance from D's copper smelting business. Brought action in respect of damages caused by smelting to crops, trees, and foliage. There were several industrial businesses in locality. D claimed use of property was reasonable given locality and smelting works existing before C moved Held: Where there is physical damage to property, thelocality principle has no relevance. It is no defense that the claimant came tothe nuisance. |
House of Lords drew a distinction betweeninterference with AMENITY INTERESTS (use and enjoyment of land) which takesinto account locality and ACTUAL PHYSICAL DAMAGE where locality is irrelevant 'Locality rule' - taken into account if interference with amenity interests no physical damage |
|
|
Baxter v Camden London Borough Facts: council flats ineffectively insulated and tenants argued landlord council was in breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment of land Held: landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to positive duty torequire improvement in the soundproofing of a building, beyondstandards at the time when the houses were built. |
Lord Millet: not enough for landowner to act reasonably in own interest. He must be considerate of theinterest of his neighbor. The governing principle is good neighborliness, andthis involves reciprocity. For landlord to become liable in nuisance for tenant’s acts, it is not enough ‘to be aware of the nuisance and take no steps to prevent it. They must either participate directly or be taken to have authorized it by letting the property.’ |
|
|
Lawrence v Fen Tigers Facts: C complained that motorcycle and other racing activities on neighboring lands was noise nuisance, but court considered agents of D sought to intimidate C into not pursuing the claim. Held: nuisance was committed. Severalactivities had been operated over the years with and without planningpermissions, but the permissions could not be said to have altered thecharacter of the area. |
Lord Neuberger: No defence that the claimant had acquired her property after the nuisance had started, i.e. it was no defence that the claimant had “come to the nuisance”. However, at least in some circumstances, the nuisance claim might fail because it was only as a result of the claimant having later changed the use of her land, or built on it, that the defendant’s pre-existing activity was claimed to have become a nuisance. Hint at different approach to 'coming to the nuisance' asa defence. Planning authority not a defence |
|
|
Gillingham BC v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd Facts: D obtained planning permission to turn a disused dockyard into a commercial port opening 24 hours a day. Local residents sought injunction due to noise throughout the night Held: where planning permissionis given for a development or change of use, the question of nuisance willthereafter fall to be decided by reference to a neighborhood with thatdevelopment or use and not as it was previously. Actionstherefore failed |
Nature of locality can change Buckley J:"Parliamenthas set up a statutory framework & delegated the task of balancing theinterests of the community against those of individuals & of holding thescales between individuals, to the local planning authority. There is the rightto object to any proposed grant, provision for appeals and inquiries, &ultimately the minister decides. There is the added safeguard of judicialreview.... planning authority can,through its development plans & decisions, alter the character of a neighborhood." |
|
|
Wheeler v JJ Saunders Facts: C owned a farm with farmhouse and some holiday cottages. Leased the farm to D who obtained planning permission to build a Trowbridge house on the farm, 2 years later another. C brought action relating to noise and smell from pigs at his holiday cottages Held: found for C. Granting for planning permission differs from statutory authority and confers no immunity from an action in nuisance |
Compare with Gillingham - decision states the granting of planning permission may change neighborhood, making it more difficult to establish a nuisance. Courts construed this as difference between the planning permission being‘strategic’ (deliberate attempt to change the nature of locality for the commongood) or ‘expansive’ (allowed the growth of one individual’s land) Priorto Gillingham general assumption that privaterights to claim in nuisance were unaffected by grant, developer went ahead at his own risk if activities cause a nuisance. Gillingham calls that assumption into question (Peter Gibson) |
|
|
Network Rail |
‘it was foreseeable that specific damage wouldbe caused to a specific claimant’s use of land” - not unreasonably sensitive |
|
|
McKinnin Industries v Walker Facts: D manufactured steel and iron products near C's property. C had dwelling house/commercial/commercial florists. Grew orchids, known for their sensitivity. Brought anaction in relation to noxious fumes and smuts, which had deposited over hisshrubs, trees, hedges and flowers causing them to die. Held: D's actions constituted unlawful nuisance & therefore C entitled to recover damages in respect of orchids despite sensitive nature |
if nuisance would affect those of ordinary sensitivity, sensitivity is immaterial |
|
|
Walter v Selfe Facts: The burning of bricks was a nuisance to the plaintiff's neighbouring house. An injunction was granted. |
“[an] inconvenience materially interfering withthe ordinary comfort…of human existence, not merely according to elegant anddainty modes of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notionsamong the English people’ |
|
|
Heath v Mayor of Brighton Facts: P were trustees ofa church. The defendant built an electricity sub station next door. Sought an injunction, saying that the humming sound emitted could beheard in the church. Held: The special requirementsfor quiet required in a church did not impose any higher standard fromneighbors as regards the special use made of land. The plaintiffs had notestablished that the noise was a sufficient interference to support aninjunction |
High sensitivity does not impose any higher standard from neighbors |
|
|
Robinson v Kilvert Facts: D had business making paper boxes, required warm, dry atmosphere. D operated from basement of premises and let out the ground floor to claimant. Used the premises for storing brown paper. Heat generated damaged paper Held: D was not liable. Damage was due to sensitivity of paper |
Lopes LJ: "I think the Plaintiff cannot complain of what is being doneas a nuisance. A man who carries on anexceptionally delicate trade cannot complain because it is injured by his neighbordoing something lawful on his property, if it is something which would notinjure anything but an exceptionally delicate trade." |
|
|
Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board Facts: electrical interference with TV signals. Held: did not constitute legal nuisance, interference with purely recreational facility, not health/physical comfort/well. Court did not exclude the possibility that ability to receivetelevision signals free from interference might one day be recognized as"so important a part of an ordinary householder's enjoyment [that it]should be regarded as a legal nuisance' |
Objective test of nuisance |
|
|
Christie v Davey Facts: The claimant was amusic teacher. She gave private lessons at her home and her family also enjoyedplaying music. She lived in a semi-detached house which adjoined thedefendant’s property. The defendant had complained of the noise on manyoccasions to no avail. He took to banging on the walls and beating trays andshouting in retaliation. Held: D's actions were motivated by malice and therefore didconstitute a nuisance. An injunction was granted to restrain his actions. |
In assessing whether the defendant is areasonable user of their land, their motive may be taken into account. Only anissue where actions by the defendant were undertaken in bad faith, or withmalice towards the claimant Same held in Hollywood Silver fox Farm Ltd v Emmett |
|
|
Bradford Corporation v Pickles Facts: Theplaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent D interfering with thesupply of water to the city, entirely by actions on hisown land. Held: P could have no property in the water until it came on their landand they collected it, and ‘if the owner of the adjoining land is in asituation in which an act of his, lawfully done on his own land, may divert thewater which would otherwise go into the possession of this trading company, Isee no reason why he should not insist on their purchasing his interest fromwhich this trading company desires to make profit.’ |
Theexercise of a legal right is not an unlawful abuse of that right merely byreason of a predominant improper or ulterior purpose. |
|
|
What are the possible defences in private nuisance? |
1. Volenti non fit injuria 2. Contributory Negligence 3. Statutory Authority (emanation-creating activity is authorized, expressly or implicitly by statute) - environmental permits not equivalent to statutory authority 4. 20 years prescription (can show they have been using land for 20 years) |
|
|
Miller v Jackson Facts: Cricket played for 70 years. 4 years prior to theaction, home wasput up in close proximity to the cricket ground. C brought action against the cricket club seeking injunction. Initially number ofballs were hit over the houses, then club erected higher fence & the number hit out was reduced to nine over two-years. Had been no personal injuries, some property damage which cricket club had paid for. C complained she could not use her garden & wouldoften stay out of the house altogether |
D were liable in both negligence& nuisance (Lord Denning dissenting)However, Bruce LJ refused the injunction on the grounds that itwould be inequitable to grant an injunction given that the cricket ground hadbeen used for so long and would be a loss to the community and Mrs. Millerreceived the benefit of being adjacent to an open spaceDiscretion given to judges to decide what constitutes nuisance Denning - painted a beautiful picture of town brought together by cricket field, the removal of which has devastating effects |
|
|
Is the 'public benefit' or 'utility' of a defendant's actions a defence in nuisance? |
Generally public benefit not taken into consideration, except for in considering what remedy to grant |
|
|
Adams v Ursell House ownercomplained that his neighbor’s fish and chip shop was emitting odors, whichimpinged on the enjoyment of his house. Dennis v Ministry of Defence C owned estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational andtraining base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noisedisturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: anaverage of 70 times a day. Held- not ordinary use of land |
Mixed views as to whether/extent to whichsocial value of activities should be taken into account. Not historicallyinterested in wider social implications but two competing rights inland. Will definitely have effect however when deciding when to issueinjunction or oblige compensation Difficult decision to award damages for personal damage in land torts, technically impossible except where the value of land has decreased or effect nuisance has on claimant's enjoyment of land (personal discomfort linked with lack of enjoyment - recoverable) |
|
|
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Facts: D caused structural damageto a house and nuisance to its occupier. Held: The trial judge awarded damages but refused an injunction. The Court of Appeal reversed this allowing an injunction. |
Smith LJ: Principles laid out in respect of awarding damages in nuisance: - injury to C's legal right small --And capable of being estimatedin money -And is one which can be adequately compensatedby a small money payment - And the case is one in which it would beoppressive to D to grant an injunction Lindley: "Court has always protestedagainst the notion that it ought to allow a wrong to continue simply becausethe wrongdoer is able and willing to pay for the injury he may inflict." |
|
|
Coventry v Lawrence
Facts: C brought nuisance action against D in respect of noise generated by motor sports. Planning permission had been granted in 90s for construction of speedway stadium/further motocross stadium. D had certificate of lawful useunder the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Held: planning permission had no effect on nature of locality |
Injunction established as prima facie remedy, should not be able to 'buy the right' to commit a nuisance
Lord Neuberger: 4 factors laid out in Shelfer should not fetter judicial discretion on case-by-case basis. Would lead to an almost mechanical approach and felt it ‘wrong in principle that, through the granting of a planning permission, a planning authority should be able to deprive s property-owner of a right to object to what would otherwise be a nuisance’ |
|
|
Delaware Mansions v Westminster CC Facts: The landowner claimed damages for works necessary toremediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto hisproperty. |
Abatement might apply in situations where problem complained about is encroachment - may avail themselves legitimately of the remedy as long as they do no more than necessary to abate the nuisance |
|
|
Rylands v Fletcher Facts: The defendant owneda mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed overa disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mineshafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causingextensive damage. Held: D was strictly liable for all damage caused by the escape of water even though he was not in any way to blame |
Protects occupier against interference due to an isolated escape from neighbor's land Lord Cairns insisted escape from land must represent a non-natural use Lord Cranworth: “Ifa person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it shouldescape, may cause damage to his neighbor, he does so at his peril. If it doesescape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been,and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.” |
|
|
Hurdles to claims under Rylands v Fletcher |
- Who can be sued/who can sue/for what? Requirements: 1) D brings on land for his own purposes something likely to do mischief 2) It escapes 3) Representing a non-natural use of land 4) Causes relevant foreseeable damage (unclear whether harm/escape must be foreseeable)... was kind of damage reasonably foreseeable? - Possible defences: Statutory Authority, Contributory Negligence, Consent, Special Rylands defences |
|
|
Transco v Stockport Facts: D was responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water toa block of flats. Leak developed & undetected for some time. Thewater collected at embankment, housing C's high-pressure gasmain. The water caused the embankment to collapse & left the gas main exposedand unsupported. Was a serious and immediate risk. C tookaction to avoid the potential danger, then sought to recover the cost. Held: D was not liable, use of land was not a non-natural use |
Lord Walker suggest that liability in nuisance (presumably in Rylands) 'overlaps with (indeed, is a sort of condominium with) that of negligence Lord Hoffman - 'It is hard to escape the conclusion that the intellectual effort devoted to the rule by the judges and writers over many years has brought forth a mouse' |
|
|
Stannard v Gore Facts: D/A ran a business involving the storage of tires. C’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire ofthe tires escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strictliability under the rule in Rylands, concluding that the appellant hadcollected the tires on his land, and that the fire had escaped. Held: Appeal succeeded |
Ward LJsaid: ‘scope of Rylands v Fletcher has been narrowed ... the Recorder in fact extended it beyondany previous expression... imposed strict liability where ithad not existed…. An occupier of landwill not be liable to his neighbor for a fire that begins accidentally unlesshe is negligent in failing to prevent its spread. The general test ofnegligence may entail the taking of special precautions where the use inquestion involves the accumulation or storage of inflammable or readilycombustible materials. But that is a question of fact … |
|
|
Read v Lyons Facts: D had factory manufacturing explosives for Ministry of Supply, employed C. Explosion while employed killed a man and injured others. No evidence of negligence. Held: Judge held case was governed by Rylands and therefore strict |
Must be evidence of negligence or escape of dangerous thing |
|
|
Rickards v Lothian Facts: C ran business from second floor building. D owned the building & leased different parts. Unknown person had blocked all sinks in fourth floor lavatory and turned on taps to cause a flood, damaging claimant's stock Held: D not liable. The act which caused the damage was a wrongfulact by a third party and there was no non-natural use of land. |
Moulton L- It is not every use to which land is put thatbrings into play [the] principle. It must be some special use bringing with theincreased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of land orsuch use as is proper for the general benefit of the community |
|
|
What are the 'Rylands' defences? |
1. If the escape is the fault of the claimant, or they expressly or implicitly consented 2. If escape is caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger 3. If escape is caused by an Act of God |
|
|
Ponting v Noakes Facts: C's horse died after it had reached over the D's fence and ate some leaves from Yew tree. Held: not liable under Rylands v Fletcheras the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s land andthere had therefore been no escape. |
Charles, J: "I do not see that they can be made responsible for theeating of these Yew leaves by an animal which, in order to reach them, had comeupon his land. The hurt, which the animal received, was due to his wrongfulintrusion. He had no right to be there and the owner therefore has no right tocomplain." |
|
|
Perry v Kendricks Transport Facts: D kept old coach that needed repair on land adjoining a piece of wasteland. C, young boy of 10 approached 2 other boys on the wastelandclose to the coach. As he got close, the boys lit a match and threw it into thepetrol tank of the coach causing an explosion, which left C withsevere burns. C brought an action under the principle set outin Rylands Held: D was not liable as theescape was caused by the deliberate action of a third party |
Jenkins LJ: "But the fact that it was a thing to which the rule in Fletcher v.Rylands applied, and the fact that the vapor escaped and was ignited and diddamage, cannot conclude the matter against the defendants, because, as is wellsettled, an occupant of land cannot be held liable under the rule if the actbringing about the escape was the act of a stranger and not any act or omissionof the occupier himself or his servant or agent, or any defect, latent orpatent, in the arrangements made for keeping the dangerous thing under control."
|
|
|
Nichols v Marsland Facts: D diverted a natural stream to create ornamental lakes. Heavy rain causedthe artificial lakes and waterways to be flooded and damage adjoining land. Held: The defendant was held not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the cause of the flood was an act of God. |
Mellish LJ: “Now the jury havedistinctly found, not only that there was no negligence in the construction orthe maintenance of the reservoirs, but that the flood was so great that itcould not reasonably have been anticipated, although, if it had beenanticipated, the effect might have been prevented; and this seems to us insubstance a finding that the escape of the water was owing to the act of God." |
|
|
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan Facts: Council undertook work on D's land. They placed a culvertin a ditch to allow the water to drain away, but negligentlyplaced a grate, rendered it useless, and culvert became prone to blockages. heavy rainstorm caused ablockage and ditch became flooded. The flood spread to neighboring propertyowned by C and caused substantial damage Held: D was liable. An occupier may be liablefor the acts of a trespasser if they adopt or continue the nuisance. |
'Straddles' tort of nuisance and an action under Rylands v Fletcher - turns on what is the 'nuisance'/problem in the first place - Is it an ongoing situation due to risk of escape, making it a private nuisance claim? - Is it the isolated escape, making it a Rylands issue? - Did defendants act reasonably, or claim in negligence? |
|
|
Leakey v National Trust Facts: C's land had been damaged by falls of soil & other debris from d's land. Falls caused entirely by nature. D were aware of risk, had sought legal advice and been told they would not be liable for naturally occurring slides, so did nothing. Following unusual heat and rain, C noticed crack in bank above her house and offered to pay half of cost of repair. offer rejected and few weeks later was large fall Held: D liable following Goldman decision. |
Followed Goldman Adefendant is liable for a naturally occurring hazard on the land if they areaware of the danger and failed to act with reasonable prudence to remove thehazard. |
|
|
Goldman v Hargrave Facts: gum tree on the D's land struckby lightning & caught fire. The following morning D contacted atree feller to cut down the tree. Wood was stillsmouldering and the D failed to douse it with water to eliminate risk. Over next few days the weather became very hot & reignitedthe fire which spread to neighbouring property. Held: D was liable for the naturally occurringdanger that arose on his land as was aware of danger & failed to actwith reasonable prudence |
If an individual becomes aware of danger on their own land, should be prudent in removing hazards |
|
|
Should there be a fusion of Rylands rule and nuisance in tort? |
Lord Goff (Cambridge Waters): Even though Rylands rule developed from desire to protect landowners form risks of isolated escapes from industry/other risky activities, ‘it would …lead to a more coherent body of common law principles if therule were to be regarded as essentially an extension of the law of nuisance toisolated escapes from land” |
