6 - Nuisance and the escape of dangerous things

Question 1

What is private nuisance?

Answer 1

Protecting the rights of an occupier against unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of his land

Question 2

What rights will the court have to balance in Private nuisance?

Answer 2

The right of the defendant to use their land how they please, and the right of the neighbors to not have the use or enjoyment of their land interfered with

Question 3

What is an ‘interest in the land’?

Answer 3

A legal interest but not necessarily ownership - malone v laskey 1907

Question 4

What can an interference be?

Answer 4

flooding
noise
smells
physical damage

Question 5

What is an unlawful interference?

Answer 5

An unreasonable use of the land by the D which leads to an unreasonable interference with the C’s use of enjoyment
London Borough of Southwark v Mill 1999

Question 6

What do courts consider when determining whether the use of the land and the interference was unreasonable?

Answer 6

Locality/Neighbourhood
Duration
Sensitivity
Malice

Question 7

Locality/Neighbourhood

Answer 7

the reasonableness will depend on the nature of the locality,
A higher level of nuisance is considered reasonable in industrial areas, (Hirose electrical v peak ingredients 2011)

Question 8

When may the locality of the nuisance be irrelevant?

Answer 8

When physical damage is caused- St helens smelting v Tipping 1865

Question 9

Duration

Answer 9

The longer a nuisance occurs, the greater the interference and the likelihood it is unlawful. a temporary activity may also be considered a nuisance

Question 10

Sensitivity

Answer 10

If the claimant is abnormally sensitive or the use of their land is sensitive the d will not be liable - unless the activity would amount to a nuisance to a reasonable person test

Question 11

Malice

Answer 11

If the defendant’s actions are malicious, they are more likely to be found to be unreasonable - Christie v Davey 1893

Question 12

Foreseeability in private nuisance

Answer 12

The foreseeability of the type of damage is important as it would be in negligence

Question 13

St helens smelting v Tipping 1865

Answer 13

Damage was caused by smelting to crops and trees ect
Where there is psychical damage, the locality is irrelevant

Question 14

London Bourough Southwark v Mills 1999

Answer 14

Tree roots encroached on teh Cs land
the council as liable even if they did not own the land, as they had control over the trees

Question 15

Hirose electrical v peak ingredients 2011

Answer 15

C complained about the smell of Ds business on an industrial estate making curry. Locality and neighbourhood, the smell was permitted in the estate

Question 16

Malone v Laskey 1907

Answer 16

C injured when something fell on her in the bathroom from the toilet
didnt succeed as she didnt have an interest in the land

Question 17

The case of rylands v fletcher 1868

Answer 17

D constructed a reservoir above a used mine and it spread to a neighbours working mine - causing damage

Question 18

What kind of liability is RvF

Answer 18

Strict liability - can be liablewithout being negligent
controversial so a restrictive approach is taken

Question 19

Rylands v fletcher

Answer 19

where the escape of a non-naturally stored material onto adjoining property damages or destroys that property

Question 20

What are the requirements of RvF?

Answer 20

1 - accumulation on the D’s land
2 - a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
3 - escape
4 - non-natural use of the land
5 - the damage mustn’t be too remote

Question 21

The requirements for accumulation

Answer 21

1 - the D must bring a hazardous thing onto their land and keep it there
2 - Must be accumulated for the defendants own purposes
3 - The thing that escapes need not be the thing accumulated

Question 22

Giles v walker 1890

Answer 22

Thistles from the Ds land damages the C’s crops
The d hadn’t brought the thistles onto his land so couldnt be liable

Question 23

Miles v Forest rock granite 1918

Answer 23

D accumulated explosives to blow up rocks and they flew into the highway, injuring C
The thing accumulated (the explosives) do not need to be the thing that escapes

Question 24

A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes

Answer 24

Does not need to be inherently dangerous - but only likely to cause damage if it escapes
electricity
branches from trees ect

Question 25

Shifman V The grand priory of St john 1936

Answer 25

The D’s flagpole hit C, amounting to and escape

Question 26

Escape

Answer 26

There must be an escape from the D’s land.
An injury caused my an accumulation on the D’s land will not create liability

Question 27

Read V lyons 1947

Answer 27

C worked in Ds factory making explosives
One exploded and killed the D and there was no evidence of negligence
No escape from the land so not liable under RvF

Question 28

Non-natural use of the land

Answer 28

The use must be extraordinary and Unusual.
a use may be extraordinary or unusual in one place at one time but not at another

Question 29

TransCO v stockport MBC 2004

Answer 29

Water supply pipes leaked and caused damage to gas supply pipers, not extraordinary or unusual so D was not liable

Question 30

Remoteness of damage

Answer 30

Liability is subject to the remotness of damage
No liability for pure economic loss