In her defence, it is possible for Ingrid to argue that she was unaware of the harsh effects that the fumes caused as Jane failed to bring this fact to her attention. Moreover, Jane did not tell Ingrid about Karl’s complaints of a headache and thus Ingrid was oblivious to Karl’s discomfort. The case of Hussain and others v Lancaster city Council illustrates that a landlord cannot be held liable if the nuisance caused by tenants is unauthorised. Nevertheless, Ingrid is aware of the fact that Jane is an amateur inventor and it is therefore reasonably foreseeable that an amateur inventor using petrol substitutes may cause a nuisance to neighbours.
Jane
Before establishing the liability of Jane it is essential to determine whether her actions are an ongoing incident in which case she may be held liable for nuisance (Bolton v Stone.) The act of conducting experiments on a frequent basis proves that this is not a mere state of affairs and Jane may therefore be held liable for private nuisance. The case of Lopez Ostra v Spain states that “problems such as noxious fumes” constitute a “nuisance type” problem. Based on this authority Jane may find herself liable towards Karl for violating his rights of personal comfort and enjoyment of his home.
“The very essence of private nuisance…is the unreasonable use of man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour” (Miller V Jackson.) This definition of private nuisance clearly establishes Jane’s liability as she is causing an unreasonable interference to Karl’s enjoyment. Furthermore, the headaches caused to Karl are not a result of any form of high sensitivity (Heath v Mayor of Brighton) but are a general effect to ordinary people, which increases the chances of Jane’s liability for private nuisance.
According to Jane, her experiment will “save western civilisation.” Viewing the case of Adams v Ursell this defence cannot be used to say that there is “an overall public benefit associated with the activity which outweighs loss to the claimant.” However, Jane may base her argument on the fact that Western civilisation is of much greater importance than Karl’s complaints (Dennis v Ministry of Defence.) Nonetheless, Lord Goff in Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather Co. states that "the storage of substantial quantities of chemicals on industrial premises should be regarded as an almost classic case of non-natural use..." Jane’s use of petroleum substitutes can be considered unnatural use of land and hence her claim to save Western civilisation may be disregarded.
It is possible for Jane to argue that it was Ingrid’s duty to ensure that the cracks in the wall were fixed (Malone v Laskey) or at least inform her of these cracks so that she could take the necessary precautions to ensure that the fumes would not affect Karl. This defence may reduce Jane’s liability for private nuisance. Additionally Per Lord Wright in Sedliegh Denfield v O’Callaghan “Liability for nuisance is not, at least in modern law, a strict or absolute liability.” Hence on this account Jane’s liability for private nuisance is likely to be reduced.
Karl
Karl’s act of breaking into Jane’s flat while she was out constitutes trespass to land. This is because of the fact that it was an intentional, unlawful entry which directly interfered with the land in Jane’s possession (Perera v Andiyar) In fact, Karl is liable for trespass to land on two accounts as he also went into Lucy’s garden without her permission to place the petrol substitutes.
Karl may further be held liable for dumping waste incorrectly. This, however, would depend on his knowledge of the hazards caused to plants, by the fumes. It can be argued that due to the fact that these petrol substitutes caused him headaches, it is foreseeable that dumping them in Lucy’s garden may cause harm, whether it is to plants or people such as Lucy living nearby. This demonstrates Karl’s lack of reasonable care in dumping the petrol substitutes on Lucy’s garden and would make him liable private nuisance to Lucy as well as other neighbours affected by the fumes, such as Max.
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher states that “the person who, purposes of his own, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, he is is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” This clearly applies to Karl as he deliberately placed the dangerous petrol substitutes which adversely affected his neighbours and constituted non-natural use of land. Instead of taking matters into his own hands Karl should have contacted the local authorities who would have resolved the situation and disposed off the dangerous petrol substitutes in an efficient manner. On these grounds Karl is liable for private nuisance and would be required to compensate Lucy for her dead vegetation.
In his defence Karl may argue that if it wasn’t for Jane’s experiments, he would not have broken into her house or placed the petrol substitutes in Lucy’s garden. Nonetheless, it was his decision to enter both premises without permission instead of contacting the relevant authorities. Furthermore it was foreseeable that placing these plants in Lucy’s garden would cause a nuisance (Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather Co.)
Lucy
As far as Lucy’s liability is concerned, it is doubtful that she would be held liable for private nuisance due to the fact that Karl was responsible for deliberately placing the petrol substitutes in her garden. However, as she claims she is “too old” to do anything about it she could have contacted the local council or other relevant authorities of this hazard. Despite her neighbours complaining she still failed to contact anyone. The omission to do so may pose liability on Lucy (Goldman v Hargrave) for private nuisance towards Max and other neighbours whose vegetation were killed by the fumes.
It may be tempting to suggest that Lucy can be held liable for the damage caused to Oliver’s car as her failure to do anything about the petrol substitute in her garden caused the fumes to spread, which in turn damaged Oliver’s car. However, in this situation it was not foreseeable that the fumes would amount to this damage (Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather Co) and hence Lucy cannot be made liable for this. Furthermore, the remoteness of damage may be taken into consideration. Per Viscount Simmonds in The wagon Mound “it does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality, that for an act of negligence, however slight, which results in some trivial foreseeable damage, the actor should be liable for all the consequences, however unforeseeable and however grave, so long as they can be said to be direct.” In this circumstance, Lucy cannot be held liable for any damage to Oliver’s car.
Max
Just like Lucy, Max may have been aware of a possible nuisance to others, of the fumes. Hence his omission to notify relevant authorities may create liability for private nuisance (Goldman v Hargrave.) However, this liability is doubtful, again due to the fact that damage to Oliver’s car was not foreseeable.
Oliver
Oliver would be able to make a claim under public nuisance, for obstruction of highway as demonstrated in Ware v. Garston Haulage and because of the fact that the tree which overhangs the highway affects “the reasonable comfort and convenience of life.” He may claim these damages from Lucy, Max or even Karl depending on whether he was claiming due to the initial cause of the spread of fumes (in which case he would claim from Karl) or due to the negligence in failing to be warned of the potential harm that the fumes could cause (in which case he would claim from Max or Lucy.)
Word count: 1, 494
