Land based torts Flashcards
1
Q
Torts relating to land
A
- Private nuisance
- Public nuisance
- Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
2
Q
Private Nuisance
A
Anycontinuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a claimant’s land or their use of that land.
3
Q
Most significant land based tort
A
Nuisance
4
Q
Basis of private nuisance
A
Use of one’s land that causes an interference with the use and enjoyment of another’s land
5
Q
Who can sue in private nuisance
A
- Must have a possessionary or proprietary interest in the land
- Permission to use the land is insufficient
Claim of nuisance arises from interference with one’s land
6
Q
Key case for who can sue in private nuisance
A
Hunter and Other v Canary Wharf Ltd 1997
7
Q
Hunter and Other v Canary Wharf Ltd 1997
A
700 claimants TV reception
Canary Wharf interfere
Family members living with homeowner - claim failed
Had to have a legal interest in the land affected
8
Q
Legal interest in land
A
Owner, tenant in possession, grantees of an easement, licensee with exclusive possession
9
Q
Who can be sued in private nuisance?
A
- Creator of the nuisance
- Occupier of the land from which the nuisance originates
- Owner of the land
10
Q
Creator of the nuisance
A
Can be sued even though they may not be in a position to end the nuisance, or be the occupier of the land.
11
Q
Occupier of the land from which the nuisance originates
A
- Can be liable for nuisances created by themselves an others
- Usually not liable for nuisance caused by others
- Can be in certain cirucmstances.
12
Q
Occupier may be held liable for the nuisance created by others when…
A
- Independent contractors
- Trespassers / visitors / predecessors in title
- Naturally occurring nuisances.
13
Q
Private nuisance: Occupier liability - Independent contractors
CASE
A
Matania v National Provincial Bank 1936
14
Q
Matania v National Provincial Bank 1936
A
- Occupier liable for forseeable excessive noise and dust caused by contractors.
- Building work is not normally nuisance.
- Temporary interference (3 months) impacted music teacher;s living.
Liability for inevitable nuisance
15
Q
Private nuisance: Occupier liability - Trespassers / visitors / predecessors in title
CASE
A
Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan
16
Q
Trespassers / visitors / predecessors in title
A
Occupier will be liable if they continued or adopted nuisance
Must have knew or ought to have known of existence and failed to take steps to end it.
Occupiers adopt a nuisance if they make use of the thing causing the nuisance
17
Q
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan 1940
A
Defendant liable a nuisance created by trespasser.
Waterpipe had been unlawfully put under the defendant’s land by local authority.
Defendant used poorly maintained pipe and was liable
18
Q
Private nuisance: Occupier liability - Naturally occurring nuisance
CASE
A
Goldman v Hargrave
19
Q
Goldman v Hargrave
A
Liable when they knew or ought to have known of a danger and failed to take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance
- Fire re-ignited
20
Q
Duty to abate naturally occurring nuisance is subject…
A
- Means of the occupier
- Not expected to bankrupt themselves
- Consider what is fair and reasonable
- Consider competing demands on the public purse.
21
Q
Private nuisance: Owner (landlord)
CASE
A
- Landlord would not usually be liable for a private nuisance unless the Coventry v Lawrence 2014 exception applies
22
Q
Coventry v lawrence 2014
A
Claimant moved into bungalow < 11km from race track.
Sued occupier and landlord
Landlord not liable.
- Hadn’t authorised by actively and directly participating in it.
- Or leased it and created the nuisance.
23
Q
Whether a landlord has participated in nuisance isa question of….
A
FACT
- Dependent on events taking place after the granting of the lease.
24
Q
Purpose of private nuisance
A
Balance two competing interests
- Right of defendant to do what they like on their land.
- Rjght of claimant to enjoy their land without being discussed,
25
Bamford v Turnley 1862!
"Rule of give and take and live and let live"
26
Two preliminaries of private nuisance
* Continuous activity or state of affairs causing substantial and unreasonable interference
* Legal interests
27
Four elements of the tort of private nuisance
* Indirect interference
* Recognised damage
* Continuous act
* Unlawful interference
28
Private Nuisance: Indirect interference
* Indirect interference with use or enjoyment with claimants land.
* Sounds, smell, fumes vibrations
**intangible interference**
* Can include failure to act which result in lost.
29
Private Nuisance: Recognised damage (loss)
* Suffered some damage
**St Helen's Smelting Co v William Tipping**
* Physical damage to property.
* Sensible Personal Discomfort. Senses of the claimant are affected so that they are unable to enjoy their land = amenity damage
* Reasonably forseeable
30
St Helens
* Smoke and fumes from copper smelting plant
* Damage to claimant's property
* Prevented use and enjoyment
31
Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather 1994
Type of damage must have been reasonably forseeable.
32
Hunter
Claimant cannot claim for personal injury given that private nuisance is a tort against land not the person.
33
Mitchell v Darley Main Colliery 1886
Any physical damage to property must be **more than de minimus**
34
Walter v Selfe
Any SPD must be more than fanciful and materially interfere with ordinary human comfort
35
Private nuisance: Continuous act
General rule is that the nuisance must be continuous.
36
Four elements of tort in private nuisance
* Indirect interference
* Recognised damage
* Continuous Act
* Unlawful interference.
37
Private nuisance: Indirect Interference
* Indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of claimant's land (noise, sounds, smells, fumes and vibrations)
**Intangible Interference**
38
Private nuisance: Recognized damage
**St Helen's Smelting Co v William Tipping**
* Physical Damage
* Sensible Personal Discomfort
* Must be **Reasonably forseeable**
39
Sensible Personal Discomfort
Senses of claimant are affected, unable to enjoy the land
40
St Helen's Smelting Co v William Tipping
* Smoke and fumes from defendant's copper smelting plant caused damage to vegetation
* Prevented the use and enjoyment of their property.
41
Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather 1994
Type of damage must be **reasonably foreseeable**
42
Private Nuisance: Recognised Damage - forseeablility
* Must be reasonably forseeable
* Can recover any consequential losses **flowing from** recoverable damage
43
Can you claim for personal injury under private nuisance?
No
Private nuisance is a tort against land, not the person
**Hunter**
44
Hunter
Cannot claim personal injury for land based torts.
45
Mitchell v Darley Main Colliery
Any physical damage must be more than **de minimus** (trivial)
46
Privat Nuisance - damage
* Reasonably forseeable
* Cannot claim for personal injury
* More than de minimus = not trivial
* More than fanciful = materially interfere
47
Walter v Selfe
SPD must be more than fanciful and materially interfere with ordinary human discomfort
48
Exceptions to the general rule that must be a continuous act
* Single incident caused by an underlying state of affairs
* Activity that creates a state of affairs giving rise to the risk of escape of physically dangerous material
49
Exceptions to continuous act: Underlying state of affairs case
British Celanese v AH Hunt 1969
50
British Celanese v AH Hunt
* Metal foil strips blown from factory
* Came into contact with electricity substation
* Power failure
* Should have known of likely consequences - not a first occurrence
**persistent habit of storing the metal strips outside of the factory provided the continuance**
51
Exceptions to continuous act: State of affairs creating risk of escape of physically dangerous / damaging material
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd 1996
52
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd 1996
* Fact-sensitive decision
* Firework display and resulting fire
* Held "obiter" to be a private nuisance
* Water, gas or fire = private nuisance available *
53
Private nuisance: **Unlawful Interference**
* Unlawful = unreasonableness
**Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather**
54
Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan 1940
Reasonableness is the "ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or in a particular society"
55
Reasonableness
Ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or a particular society
**Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan**
56
Purpose of private nuisance
Balance two competing interests
57
Factors balanced when deciding if unlawful interference
* Time and duration
* Locality
* Abnormal sensitivity
* Malice
* Defendant's lack of care
* Excessive behaviour
58
Unlawful interference:
**Time and duration**
* Frequent
* Long periods of time
* More likely to be unreasonable
**Kennaway v Thompson 1981**
59
Kennaway v Thompson 1981
* When nuisance takes place
* How long
* How frequently
* Motorboat and racing club.
60
When loss is property damage only
Court may find nuisance even if caused by a temporary or short lived activity
61
Unlawful Interference: **Locality**
* Locality of the neighbourhood
* SPD only
* Character of the area
**Sturges v Bridgman**
62
Sturges v Bridgman
* Noise and vibrations coming from confectionary manufacturer
* Nuisance in residential area
63
Thesiger LJ
"would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey"
**Sturges v Bridgman**
64
Adams v Ursell 1913
* Fumes caused by fish and chip shop
* = Nuisance in residential area
What is a nuisance in one place, does not mean it would be another
65
Planning Permission and locality
Planning Permission may alter the character of the area
Changin what would count as a nuisance.
**Gilingham Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd**
66
Gillingham Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd
* Residential area became a commercial port following PP
* Heavy traffic, noise and fumes
* PP changed nature of locality
67
Granting of permission does not authorise nuisance
**Wheeler v JJ Saunders**
68
Wheeler v JJ Saunders
* PP to build pig sheds
* 11 meters from claimants holiday cottages
*PP no defence for private nuisance
* Extension did not change locality
69
Coventry v Lawrence 2014
Speedway stadium built with PP in 1975
* Overwhelmingly rural area - Nearest village 15 miles from claimant's house
* SC confirmed Wheeler
* PP did not authorise nuisance
70
Planning permission does not determine private rights
PP is of no assistance to the defendant in private nuisance claim
* Precise terms of PP may have bearing on un/reasonableness of land use.
* Relevance to remedies.
71
Following Coventry v Lawrence
Seems the precise terms of the PP may have a bearing on nuisance.
72
Unlawful Interference:
**Abnormal Sensitivity**
* Cannot claim that activities that would not interfere with ordinary occupier
* They are a nuisance to them alone
**Robinson v Kilvert**
73
Robinson v Kilvert
* Heat sensitive paper
* Shared premises
* Heat emitted from manufacturing premises damaged paper.
**Paper abnormally sensitive = no nuisance**
74
Abnormal sensitivity vs reasonable occupier
* Reasonable occupier: can claim for full extent even if increased by sensitivity = thin skull rule
* Abnormal sensitivity = no nuisance
75
McKinnon Industries v Walker
* Commercial florist and nursery
* Orchids = sensitive
* Sued in private nuisance
* Emissions killed veg.
* Ordinary flowers affected, therefore could claim for the sensitive orchids.
76
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v CJ Morris
Robinson was not overturned. But disapproved of.
* Signalling system interfered with electric guitars in recording studio
* Doubted abnormal sensitivity.
**Reasonable Forseeability**
77
Unlawful Interference: **Malice**
* Some conflict is inevitable
* If they can show a legitimate reason,, court less likely to interfere.
* If aim to annoy client = **issue of malice** = nuisance.
**Christie v Davey**
78
Christie v Davey
* Christe a music teacher
* Other person made deliberate noise
* Maliciously to upset
* Not legitimate use of land
* Granted an injunction.
79
Unlawful Interference: **Defendant's lack of care**
Defendant's lack of care is likely to count in the claimant's favour
**Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd**
80
Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd
* Building work next to hotel
* Lack of reasonable care not taken
* Defendant's attitude was to work until someone complained
= Nuisance
81
Unlawful Interference: **Excessive Behaviour**
* How far removed from normal
* If excessive = unreasonable and a nuisance?
**Farrer v Nelson**
82
Farrer v Nelson
* Pheasants
* Gained access to claimant's farm
* Damaged grain and crops
**Became a nuisance when reached the hundreds and became excessive**
83
Defenses to private nuisance
* 20 years prescription
* Statutory authority
* Consent
* Contributory negligence
* Act of third party
* Act of god
84
Defenses to private nuisance:
**20 years' prescription**
* If actionable nuisance for more than 20 years
* No action taken
* Length of time claimant had to complain key, not the activity
* Earned right to continue
85
Sturges
Confectionary had been in existence for 20 years.
Only became a nuisance after doctors.
* Defence prescription not available
86
Does the 20 years have to be continuous?
No it does not have to be continuous.
87
Defenses to private nuisance:
**Statutory Authority**
If on the basis of statutory duty, escape liability
* If all due care and nuisance exercised.
**Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd**
88
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd
* Private Act of Parliament
* Refinery in Wales
* Complained of noise and vibrations.
* HoL held was authorised by statute and nuisance inevitable
= full defence
89
Defenses to private nuisance:
**Consent**
* Claimant agrees to the nuisance = defence
* Know danger to property (by word or deed)
* Willingness to accept risks
**Pwllbach Colliery v Woodman**
90
Pwllbach Colliery v Woodman
Claimant consented to colliery activity.
Not to the coal dust disruption
* Must have specifically consented the activity causing nuisance.
91
Defenses to private nuisance:
**Contributory Negligence**
Usual rules of contributory negligence.
**Trevett v Lee**
92
Trevett v Lee
House not connected to a main water
* Garden hosepipe
* Saw hosepipe
* Tripped anyway
* Contributory negligence
Public law case, but same principles apply
93
Defenses to private nuisance:
**Acts of Third Party**
* Nuisance created by third party for whom Defendant bears no responsibility.
* Not liable unless adopts nuisance
**Sedleigh-Denfield**
94
Defenses to private nuisance:
**Acts of God**
* Nuisance from Acts of God = not liable
* Unless adopt / continue responsibility
**Nichols v Marsland**
95
Nichols v Marsland
* Defendant's artificial pools flooded and damaged property.
* Flooding caused by unusual rainfall.
* Complete defence.
96
Ineffective defence: Moving to the nuisance
The argument of "moving to the nuisance"
Does not justify nuisance
**Miller and Another v Jackson and Others**
**Coventry**
97
Miller and Another v Jackson and Others
Cricket club had been there for more than 70 years.
Houses build on adjacent land
Still = nuisance.
98
Coventry
Where the claimant uses the property for the same purposes as predecessors, the argument of coming to nuisance fails.
99
Coventry Obiter
Defendant may be able to argue claim should fail if activity became nuisance after defendant's change of use.
100
Remedies for private nuisance
Injunction
Damages
Abatement
101
Remedies for private nuisance: **Injunction**
* Primary remedy
* Can be full or partial
* Partial = compromise
102
Partial injunction
Where the defendant's activities are of public benefit.
**Kennaway**
103
Kennaway
Injunction
Partial Injunction
Was popular with public.
Asked for defendant to stick to **timetable**
104
Remedies for private nuisance: **Damages**
Type of damages depends on type of loss
105
Remedies for private nuisance: **Damages**
Actual physical loss
* Repair or renewal
* Consequential Economic Loss.
106
Remedies for private nuisance: **Damages**
SPD
Awarded in lieu of injunction.
But injunction is primary
107
Deciding if an injunction should be granted
* Defendant to put argument
* Weigh competing factors
* Consider public interest
* PP may support argument for public benefit.
108
How are damages for SPD calculated when in lieu of an injunction?
* Nominally based on the reduction in value of the claimant's property.
109
Dennis v MoD 2003
* 2 miles from RAF base
* 70 jets per day = nuisance
* Damages in lieu of injuction as defence of nation
* Awarded £950k
* Amount depreciated by aircraft noise.
110
Miller v Jackson
Damages
* Damages in lieu of injunction
* Balance rights to enjoy property and rights of public to engage in lawful pastimes
* Public interest outweighed.
111
Remedies for private nuisance: **Abatement**
* Self help
* Claimant acts to stop nuisance.
* Enter land, but do not remove anything.
* Notice to be given, but need not be given if it is an emergency
* Defence to trespass
112
Public Nuisance
"acts or omissions of the defendant that materially affect the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her majesty's subjects"
**Attorney General v PYA Quarries**
113
Attorney General v PYA Quarries
* Dust and vibrations from defendant quarry
* Sufficiently widespread to be public nuisance
= 30 households.
114
What amounts to a public nuisance
Sufficiently widespread
115
Legal nature of public nuisance
* Crime
* Occasionally a tort when harm is suffered by a section of the community, or the commnity as a whole.
116
Tort of public nuisance
Many areas now under statute.
Residual method of dealing with interferences that cannot be dealt with elsewhere.
Or if they wish to claim damages
117
Who can sue in public nuisance
* Local Authority
* Attorney General
* Individual
118
Who can sue in public nuisance?
**Local Authority**
* May sue on own behalf
* Or to protect inhabitants in its area.
119
Who can sue in public nuisance?
**Attorney General**
Where a class of people are affected, but not forthcoming
AG may bring a claim on their behalf.
120
Who can sue in public nuisance?
**An individual**
Claimant need not have an interest in land affected.
But can only sue in limited circumstances.
Must be able to show they have damaged **special damage**
121
Ricket v Met Railway
For a member of the public to sue, must show they have suffered **special damage**
122
What is special damage?
Over and above the rest of the class, or in a different way to the rest of the class.
Must be direct and substantial
123
Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc
Court stated special damage must be **direct** and **substantial**
124
Lyon Sons & Co v Gulliver
Queue outside the claimant's cafe twice a day.
* Inconvenience (obstruction of highway)
* Special Damage (Pure Economic Loss)
125
Elements of public nuisance
* Act or omission
* One-off event or continuous
* Class of His Majesty's Subjects
* Materially affects comfort and convenience
126
Elements of public nuisance: **Act or Omission**
Liability can exist for omissions and acts.
Contrasts to negligence where omissions are generally not actionable.
127
Elements of public nuisance **One-off event or private nuisance**
Unlike private nuisance, can be one-off or isolated event.
128
Elements of public nuisance **Class of subjects**
* Sufficiently widespread
* Depends on facts of case
* Not necessary that every member of the class has been affected
129
PYA Quarries
* No exact number of people = class
* Depends on facts of case
* Not every member of class has been affected, just a cross section.
130
R v Rimmington
* Court held a "class" refers to a significant section of the community.
* Suffers "common injury" = "same time and in the same location"
131
Rimmington
Sent racially offensive items across the country.
These people were not a "class" in the way required by public nuisance
"same time and place"
132
Elements of public nuisance: **materially affects**
* Comfort and convenience
* Property damage, CE, PI & inconvenience
133
Inconvenience
Must be more than trivial
**Jan de Nul (UK) Ltd v Royale Belge SA**
Annoyance or irritation that is **material**
Must be **reasonably forseeable** (Wagon Mound)
134
Can PI be claimed in Private Nuisance?
No
135
Can PI be claimed in Public Nuisance?
Yes
136
Benjamin v Storr
Coffee House
* Auctioneers created obstruction and inconvenience by loading and unloading
* Direct and substantial
137
Defences for public nuisance
* Same defences for private nuisance.
* Except for prescription
* Main defence is statutory authority
138
Remedies for private nuisance
* Injunctions and damages
* If claim is brought by Attorney General or Local Authority then injunction only.
139
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack
Nuisance = defecating pigeons
* Public nuisance
* Defendants had to "pigeon-proof" bridge
140
Castle v St Augustine's Link
Claimant was struck by a golf ball.
* Class of persons = highway users
* Individual suffered special damage
141
Rylands v Fletcher
* Independent contractors
* Reservoir for mill
* Contractor failed to block of mineshaft
* Flooded mine
* Action to recover flood damage
**No evidence of negligence as had not known of mineshafts**
* Held liable
142
Blackburn J
* Bringing onto own land
* Collecting to keep anything likely to do mischief
**at his peril**
* Answerable to all damage that is a natural consequence of escape.
143
Ryelands - who can sue.
Proprietary interest in the land affected (Hunter)
144
Ryelands - who can be sued.
Person who brings, collects and keeps the "thing" and / or
person who has control over the land
145
Ryelands - loss tupe
Must suffer some damage
* Property damage
* CEL
146
Rylands v Fletcher Rule
= a sub species of private nuisance
**Transco v Stockport Met BC**
147
**Transco v Stockport Met BC**
Rylands v Fletcher is a sub species of private nuisance
148
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher
* D brings onto land and accumulates there
* For their own purposes
* Anything likely to do mischief if it escapes
* Escape
* Forseeable harm
* Non-natural use of land
149
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**Brings onto land and accumulates**
Defendant must have voluntarily brought something onto the land
**Giles v Walker**
150
Giles v Walker
* No liability for the spread of thistles from defendantw land
* Grew naturally
* Not brought onto land.
151
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**For their own purposes, anything likely to do mischief (damage) if it escapes**
* Capable of causing damage
* If it escapes
* Water, acid and explosives
**Transco v Stockport Met BC**
152
Transco v Stockport Met Borough Council
* Wide ranging effect of term "anything likely to do mischief" circumvented
* Pipe leaked and caused embankment collapse
* Left Transco pipe unprotected.
* Cost £94k to stop fracturing.
* HoL held that exceptionally high risk - very high threshold not satisfied.
153
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**Escape**
* Must escap from land over which the defendant has control
* Can be slow and over a period of time
* Must be collected by the defendant.
**Stannard v Gore**
154
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc
Can be slow and over a period of time
155
Stannard v Gore
* Defendant stored tyres on his property
* Caught and spread
* Claim failed as it was the tyres brought onto the land
**not the fire**
156
Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream
Where fuel escapes and causes fire
It is both fuel and fire escaping.
157
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**Escape caused forseeable harm**
* Need not have seen the escape.
* Only be aware of the damage in the event it escaped.
* Will be liable even if take reasonable care
**Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather**
158
Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather
* Leather chemical seeped through concrete floor
* Into the soil below
* Travelled 1.3 miles away into borehole.
* Forced to relocate at £1 mill.
**Claim failed**
159
Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather
**Claim failed**
* Pollution to borehole 1.3 miles away not reasonably forseeable
160
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**Non-natural use of land**
Non-ordinary use of land
* Depends time, place and context of the use of the land.
* All the circumstances must be taken into account when
161
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**Non-natural use of land**
Transco
HoL held that piping water was not extraordinary and unusal.
162
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**Non-natural use of land**
Colour Quest
Non natural because of the **quantity** of oil being kept there
163
Elements of Rylands v Fletcher:
**Non-natural use of land**
Cambridge Water
HoL (obiter) the storage of substantial quantities of chem on industrial premises.
* Almost classic case of non natural use.
164
Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
Addition of **Common Benefit**
* Common benefit
* Act or default of the claimant
* Statutory authority
* Act of third party
* contributory negligence
* Consent.
165
Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
**Common benefit**
* Claimant agreed to accumulation of material
* No liability
* Consent can be implied if accumulated for **common benefit**
Eg **Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre**
166
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Shop flooded by sprinkler system from neighbouring theatre.
This was for equal benefit.
Therefore not liable
167
Rylands v Fletcher: Defenses
**Act or default of the claimant**
* If the escape was wholly claimants action = no liability
**Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co** (Claimant dug under defendants canal and caused flood)
168
**Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co**
Claimant dug under defendants canal and caused flood
169
Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
**Statutory Authority**
* Same rules a private nuisance.
**Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co**
- Statutory power authorised the laying down of water pipe, under obligation to maintain high pressure in water main.
170
**Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co**
Statutory power authorised the laying down of water pipe, under obligation to maintain high pressure in water main.
= rely on defence
171
Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
**Acts of Third Party**
* Defendant will not be liable if
* Escape arose through the unforseeable act of a stranger over whom they had no control
**Rickards v Lothian**
172
Rickards v Lothian
Third party deliberately blocked the waste pipe and left the tap running which led to flooding of the claimants property.
Defendant not liable as would not have reasonably known.
173
Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
**Acts of God**
Natural occurrence which could not have been reasonably forseen.
174
Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
**Acts of God**
Transco
Must not be realistically possible for a human to reasonably guard against or prevent the event by **any amount of foresignt, pain and care**
175
Rylands v Fletcher: Defences
**Acts of God**
Nichols v marsland
Defendant had pools on land formed by damming a natural stream which flowed through property.
* Rainfall broke banks, four bridges swept away.
* Defendant not liable for unforseen act of nature
176
Rylands v Fletcher: Remedies
* Damages - most common
* Injunctions
Loss is commonly property damage and CEL
177
