• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

TORT ESSAY - NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

TORT ESSAY - NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE A number of aspects of liability rise from this case study and each one will be discussed. With regards to the headaches suffered by Karl, it is necessary to look at private nuisance. Negligence is disregarded as it is assumed from the details in the case study that the headaches suffered are not so serious as to cause personal injury, it is just described as 'mere discomfort'. Such a claim under the law of nuisance requires three factors to be fulfilled. The first being a continuous interference. This is shown in De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914) 30 TLR 257. From the case study one can assume that it is a continuing interfering act and not a one off. Secondly, the interference must be unlawful or unreasonable. This is up to the claimant to prove. The rule for this is sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (So use your own property as not to injure your neighbour's). The locality in this instance reflects the unreasonableness of Jane's actions. It occurred in a residential area and therefore such Gases were not to be expected. The duration of the act will also be taken into account. ...read more.

Middle

Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852. However, much more detail would be needed to establish this. The fact Jane claims her invention may save the western world is not a defence to private nuisance but may be argued in her defence. Because Jane is only a tenant, Ingrid the landlord may also be liable. A landlord may be liable for nuisances emanating from land, e.g. if the landlord had knowledge of the nuisance before letting, or where the landlord reserved the right to enter and repair the premises. For example, Tetley v Chitty [1986] 1 All ER 663 - council granted permission for a go-kart track on council owned land. Council liable in nuisance for noise. The fact that the partition wall had cracks in that allowed the fumes to come through may also render Ingrid liable. It says they were like that even before she acquired the property however it does not state if she had knowledge of them. If she did she may be liable under negligent failure to repair however more facts are needed for this. Obviously, Karl's breaking and entering into Jane's flat and theft of the petrol substitute is unlawful however this is an area of criminal law and not tortious liability, therefore the next area to be discussed is Lucy and Karl's liability for the destroyed vegetation in the gardens adjoining Lucy. ...read more.

Conclusion

If he did this would greatly strengthen Oliver's position as Max may be liable under negligence. Also, the fact that a 2 month period passes between the vapors penetrating the branch and it falling onto the highway may be important. This brings in the test of reasonableness from Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568, HL and asks the question if it was reasonable for Max to check his tree as his duty of care to the users of the highway of which the branch overhung. An occupier's control of land may give rise to an affirmative duty in relation to the behavior of visitors or even acts of nature. Where the defendant has control over some object which is likely to be particularly dangerous if interfered with by a third party he may be under a duty to prevent such an interference (Dominion Natural Gas v Collins and Perkins [1909] AC 640). This has been applied to the theft of a poisonous chemical by young children (Holian v United Grain Growers (1980) 112 DLR (3d) 611). In conclusion, on the facts presented it is unclear if Oliver could be successful with a claim over Max for the damage of his car. More detail would be required however on the assumption no extra checks were carried out and the finding in Holian v United Grain GrowersI think a claim for damages will succeed. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    not likely to be reduced, and imprisonment is likely to be the result. A normal sentence for Actual bodily harm could be up to six months. Critical Evaluation Negligence occurs in many areas of sport, but is there a difference between the participators and the general public in negligence claims.

  2. Fault Essay

    This ruling reflects that even though the D may have carried out of offence, they are not necessarily, depending on the circumstances regarded as being responsible for their actions. If however, the automatism is self induced, for example where the D voluntarily consumes drink or drugs which cause him to

  1. Law- Negligence

    The cost of the valuations fell on the applicants, but no privity of contract existed between applicant and valuer. The valuation in the second case was not shown to the applicant, but he assumed that if the council were prepared for to grant the loan then the house must surely be all right.

  2. UNIT3 ASSIGNMENT4 LAW OF TORT

    The factors that Leonard must take into account when establishing whether to bring a claim of private nuisance against Ken. In deciding whether a private nuisance (of either type)

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    ace_16k, please do not redistribute this hypothesis. We work very hard to create this website, and we trust our visitors to respect it for the good of other students. Please, do not circulate this hypothesis elsewhere on the internet. Anybody found doing so will be permanently banned.

  2. negligence in tort

    The defendant's were held liable in negligence because it was held that a duty of care was owed to him even though the illness he suffered was extremely rare. Duty is about relationships, and it must be shown that the particular defendant stood in the required relationship to the claimant

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Criminal Damage Act 1971 - criminal damage - but also under s.1 (2) of the same act which is criminal damage with the additional element of 'intentionally or recklessly endangering life'. Caldwell pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of criminal damage but not guilty under s.1 (2)

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there." The occupiers of the premise must concern about the visitors for example the safety of the visitors.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work