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;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Canadian case law |
CNR v NPS. Defendant crashed into bridge CNR didn't own, causing CNR to have to reroute trains. Defendant knew the loss would result, so there was proximity. Quasi joint venture. |
|
|
Australian case law |
Perre v Apand. Potato grower. Defendant imported seeds with bacterial wilt to try on land next to plaintiff, regulations meant that plaintiff crop wasn't infected but couldn't be used within a 20k radius for 5 years. Prohibited export to WA. No physical damage but PEL claim.
Recovered. No indeterminate liability. Vulnerable to defendant's activity and physically close. Loss was RF, liability determinate, burden reasonable, plaintiff vulnerable, defendant knew harm. |
|
|
Irish case law |
Initially enthusiastically refused PEL, Irish Paper Sacks v John Sisk, fire in adjacent factory.
McShane v Johnston Haulage, PEL not a bar to recovery.
Glencar, cast a shadow on the potential of recovering for PEL. |
|
|
Sufficient Proprietary Interest |
Charter of Vessel- The Winkfield |
|
|
Joint Ventures |
One joint venturer can recover for damage caused to property owned by the joint venturers. Maine v Leask, fishing crew all recovered. |
|
|
Caltex Oil |
Plaintiff used another pipeline, sued for additional cost of transport when it was damaged by defendant. Defendant aware of plaintiff's use. Specific and identifiable individual who's loss was RF. |
