Paper 2: public and private nuisance, rylands fletcher Flashcards
Nuisance: two types
Private and public
Private nuisance: definition
A tort which deals with dispute between adjacent landowners which involved drawing a balance between the right of one person to use their land in whatever way they wish and the right of their neighbour not to be interfered with
Private nuisance: 3 elements
1) An unreasonable use of land
2) Leading to an indirect interference
3) With the claimants use of enjoyment of land
Private nuisance: who is D?
The ‘creator’ of the nuisance
Private nuisance: who is an occupier (cases)
- Authorising the nuisance (Tetley v Chitty)
- Adopting the nuisance (Sedleigh v O’Callaghan)
Private nuisance: Sedleigh v O’Callaghan
Held: as D knew of the nuisance/danger and allowed it to continue, D was held to have ‘adopted’ the nuisance and was liable for the damage
Private nuisance: Leakey v National Trust (1980)
D, the National Trust were liable as they knew that it might happen and did not prevent it
Private nuisance: factors to affect unreasonable use of the land
- Social benefit (Miller v Jackson)
- Duration (Bolton v Stone)
- Locality and time of day/week
- Malice (Christie v Davey)
- Sensitivity (Robinson v Kilvert)
Private nuisance: second element to prove the unreasonable use of land
That it has led to an indirect interference
Private nuisance: remote definition
The defend]ant is only liable for the damage if it is a reasonably forseeable consequence
Private nuisance: The Wagon Mound
Held: the courts held that damage by the oil was foreseeable, but the damage by the fire was not and therefore was too remote
Private nuisance: contributory negligence definition
Contributing to the nuisance they are complaining fo
Private nuisance: Sayers v Harlow UDC
Facts: C tried to escape a locked toilet so stands on the toilet roll holder and was injured
Held: Damages reduced by 25%
Private nuisance: 3 parts of consent
1) Knowledge and precise risk involved
2) Exercise of free choice by the claimant
3) A voluntary acceptance of the risk
Private nuisance: Smith v Baker
Held: workman had already done all that he could in complaining about the risks involved in the work place above his head. He had no choice but to continue work and did not give his consent to the danger
Private nuisance: what is the aim of damages?
To put C back into the position they were in before the damage/loss had occurred
Private nuisance: why would C want to claim damages in private nuisance?
- Physical damage to the land
- Personal discomfort/inconvenience
- If property has diminished in value
- Loss of amenity
Private nuisance: what is an injunction?
To stop D doing something or to make D do something
Private nuisance: when would an injection be most effective
To stop a continuous nuisance
Private nuisance: what is an abatement?
Where the claimant rectifies the nuisance himself and is a self-help remedy. The claimant has the right to take reasonable steps to deal with any nuisance himself
Public nuisance: definition
‘…something which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of her Majesty’s subjects’
Public nuisance: what was the case the definition was laid out in?
Attorney General v PYA Quarries
Public nuisance: two elements
1) The nuisance must affect the public or a section of the public. This is known as a ‘class of people’
2) For an individual to bring an action in tort, he must suffer ‘special damage’ over and above that of other members of the public. The damage must be direct and substantial
Public nuisance: examples
- Obstruction to a highway
- A protest
- Noise and traffic disruptions at a badly organised event
Public nuisance: who can be prosecuted?
The creator of the nuisance
Public nuisance: who can sue?
The council can do it on behalf of those affected, or by the AG after a criminal conviction
Public nuisance: AG v PYA Quarries
- There is no minimum number to satisfy a ‘class of people’
- It was not a private nuisance as it is not reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own
- D’s activities amounted to a public nuisance and an injunction was granted
Public nuisance: special damages (cases)
1) Personal injury (Castles v St Augustine Links)
2) Property damage (Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co.Ltd)
3) Financial loss (Roles v Miles)
Public nuisance: Castle v St Augustine Links (1922)
Facts: golf tee was near a public road and sometimes hit cars, on one occasion a taxi was hit breaking the windscreen and the driver had an eye injury Held: the golf club was found liable for public nuisance. The class of people were affected were car drivers who drove along the road, the claimant suffered special damage over and above that of the class
Public nuisance: Corby Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council (2008)
Facts: toxic soil led to several children being born with broken limbs
Held: CA held that a public nuisance is not confined to loss of enjoyment of land, it is an unlawful act or omission which endangers the life, safety, health, proper or comfort of the public
Rylands v Fletcher: facts
D was a mill owner who wanted to build a reservoir on his land and employed independent contractors to assess the land. The contractors discovered a disused mineshaft but believed it was filled with earth. Unknown to the D or the contractors, this mineshaft connected to the C’s coal mine on neighbouring land
Rylands v Fletcher: held
When the reservoir was filled, water poured down the shaft and flooded the coal mine owned by C. D had not been negligent as he had taken care to select a competent and experiences independent contractor, yet he was liable for the damage to C’s land, creating a new tort
Rylands v Fletcher: four elements
1) D brings something onto his land, collects and keeps it there/accumulates there (storage)
2) Non-Natural use of land
3) Likely to do mischief if it escaped
4) Which does escape and cause reasonable foreseeable damage to adjoining property
Rylands v Fletcher: Giles v Walker (1890)
Facts: seeds from thistles blew onto neighbouring land, damaging the claimants crops
Held: the defendant was not liable as he had not brought the thistles onto his land; the weed was growing naturally
Rylands v Fletcher: examples of non natural use of the land
- A fire in a grate spreads to C’s land
- Defective electric wiring that caused a fire which spread to C’s land
- A domestic water spread
Rylands v Fletcher: Hale v Jennings Bros (1939)
Held: the owner of the ride was liable as the risk of the injury was foreseeable if the car came loose. This was an escape for the purposes of Ryland and Fletcher, D liable for personal injury
Rylands v Fletcher: there must be an escape
‘Escape from a place where the D has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control’
Rylands v Fletcher: Read v Lyons
Held: Explosion did not involve an escape because it stayed inside the factory, so the claim under Rylands by the injured inspector failed
Rylands v Fletcher: Stannard v Gore (2013)
Held: the CA outline the rules of Rylands and Fletcher again and interpreted ‘escape’ narrowly
