• 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

    Questions related to the tort of negligence.

    3 star(s)

    usually a lot more able to pay out large amounts of compensation than the employee. It probably won't hurt the company to pay the compensation as much as it would hurt the employee. And the company will probably have insurance to cover just such an eventuality, meaning that an insurance group will pay the compensation.

  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

    This led the courts to question the proximity of the respective applicants. The House of Lords extended the Hedley Byrne liability to proximate third parties. The subsequent developments the courts have untaken since the 1964 Hedley Byrne case can be seen in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970].

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    He miscalculated and broke the window. The Divisional Court sent the case back to the justices with directions to convict but without ruling on this point. Whether such a lacuna still exists is a moot point. To what cases does this test of recklessness apply? In theory, to all statutory offences which include the word 'recklessly'

  1. 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)

  2. Types of Tort Law and Relevant Cases.

    for instance if one person stole something of someone else, this is a criminal offence, they would probably be charged with theft but it is also a tort against the person who originally owned the property. Tort as well as being an action which causes harm to a person is

  1. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    While the main aim of tort proceedings is to compensate for harm suffered, contract aims primarily to enforce promises. Again, there are areas where these distinctions blur. In some cases liability in tort is clarified by the presence of agreement-for example, the duty owed by an occupier of land to

  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