Torts of Strict Liability Flashcards
Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher (13 cards)
What is private nuisance?
A use of land which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighboring land. This must be substantial and is judged according to the character of the locality
Tort of land, not of people
Who can sue for an action in nuisance?
Hunter v Canary Wharf
* Those with a proprietary interest in the land can sue, licensees and family members of tenants could not sue
* Claimant cannot sue in private nuisance for physical injury because this does not relate to land
Who can be liable for an action in nuisance?
- The creator of the nuisance
- Someone who continues the nuisance. He does so if with knowledge or presumed knowledge of its existence takes no steps to bring it to an end when he has ample time (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan)
- Where the nuisance is adopted and not stopped, extends the principle to overwhelming acts of nature (Leaky v National Trust)
- Southwark LBC v Mills, landlords cannot be held liable for nuisance unless what they have authorisied is an actionable nuisance in the first place
How should a claim of private nuisance be advanced now under Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery?
Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
Nuisance is protection not from the physical invasion but the resulting interference with the utility or amenity value of the land. Unreasonableness is not a legal standard or test that can assess nuisnace, instead proceed like this:
1. Is interference with the land substantial? This is objective, to be judged by an ordinary person in the claimants position (reflects the claim being tied to land)
2. Is the use of land ordinary?
* If the claimants use of land is not for ordinary purposes then they cannot complain (Robinson v Kilvert)
* If the claimants use of land is ordinary, it will not give rise to liability
* However, if the claimants use is not done ‘conveniently’ (with proper consideration for neighbours) then this can be actionable. Consider factors here.
Is the malice of the defendant relevant when deciding a nuisance?
- Bradford v Pickles, court originally ruled malice was not relevant, diverting percolating water was not illegal since the claimant had no right to the water
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, ruled the defendants malice was relevant where it has a direct impact on the reasonableness. Did not overturn Bradford, but likely confined it to that fact pattern
What factors can we take into account when deciding whether a claimants use of land is
St Helen’s Smelting: Locality of the nuisance, but only if this is sensible personal discomfort. Does not apply if actual damage.
Halsey v Esso Petroleum: Time the nuisance takes place, if it is done at unreasonable times then it can amount to nuisance
Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery: Public utility is not relevant to argue that an action is not nuisance, this is no defence. Intrusion of privacy was actionable in this case
Coventry v Lawrence: The grant of planning permission does not mean there is a defence, but its terms are relevant in deciding whether the use is ordinary
What are the requirements for damages in private nuisance?
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather: Reasonable foreseeability is not a prerequisite for an injunction, however it is for damages
Coventry v Lawrence: Existence of planning permission may provide strong support for the contention that the activity is for the benefit of the public and so damages in lieu of an injunction should be granted instead
What defences are available in private nuisance?
- Statutory Authority, if the claimant can show they are carrying out a duty under statute, e.g. Allen v Gulf Oil
- Prescription, if the activity has been ongoing without compliant from the claimant for 20 years
- ‘Coming to the Nuisance’ is not a valid defence per Coventry v Lawrence
What is public nuisance?
- AG v PYA Quarries: Nuisance is public if it materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of her majestys subjects. Sufficient to show a representative cross-section of the class has been affected for injunction to be issued
- S78 Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
- Occupier will liable for a public nuisance that emanates from his property regardless of how they started
What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
A person who for his own purposes brings onto 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, is answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The use of the land must amount to a non-natural use
How did the case of Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather expand the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
- Reasonable foreseeability is a requirement of the tort
- Defendant will not be liable if he has taken all reasonable care and skill to prevent the escape from happening
- The rule is an extension of the law on nuisance therefore it should apply here as well (and due to its nature being strict liability)
What is the most recent case on Rylands v Fletcher that confirmed the law?
Transco Plc v Stockport MBC
Confirmed the rule was still present in English law, gave a restatement: an occupier who can show that another has brought or kept on his land an exceptionally dangerous or mischevious thing in extraordinary or unusual cirucmstances is entitled to recover compensation from them for any damage caused by escape of the thing, subject to defences of act of God or stranger
* Non-natural use: must be extraordinary and unusual, this will ultimately depend on the time and place
* Does not apply to personal injury
What defences may be raised against a claim in Rylands v Fletchers?
- Statutory Authority
- Consent of the claimant
- Vis Major, but this will only satisfy where it is an act of nature beyond all human foresight, i.e. heavy rainfall not enough but violent thunderstorm, tornado, etc. may be
