Private Nuisance

Question 1

Read v Lyons

Answer 1

Leading case
Rule:
Defines, nusinace
.. an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of his land, or some right over, or in connection with, that land.”
Facts:
The Respondents operated a factory where they filled shell-cases with high explosives. On August 31st, 1942, an explosion occurred in the factory while the Appellant was lawfully present, resulting in the death of a man and injuries to the Appellant and others. The Appellant sued the Respondents for damages, but no negligence was alleged or proven against the Respondents.

3 issues:
1. Whether the doctrine of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher applies to the present case.

2. Whether negligence is essential for a claim of damages for personal injuries.
3. Whether the Respondents can be held liable for the injuries suffered by the Appellant without proof of negligence.

Outcome:

Appellant’s action failed due to the absence of the essential condition of “escape” required for applying the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher. The court emphasized that negligence is generally essential for a claim of damages for personal injuries and that strict liability does not apply in cases where there is no escape of dangerous objects from the defendant’s premises.

Question 2

Cambridge water v eastern counties leather (1994)

Answer 2

Unreasonableness case
Rule: D’s USE of land MUST be UNREASONBALE
facts:
Outcome: