Public nuisance Flashcards
Public nuisance on a mini basis introduction -
- Public nuisance refers to both a common law crime and an action in tort.
“[T]he term ‘public nuisance’ covers a multitude of sins, great and small”, Lord Denning, Southport Corp v. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 Q.B. 182, 196.
Tortious claims under public nuisance most commonly involve an unlawful interference with a right of way.
What was the definition provided in Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] of public nuisance?
“[A]ny nuisance is ‘public’ which materially affects the
reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as ‘the neighbourhood’; but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case. It is not necessary, in my judgment, to prove that every member of the class has been
injuriously affected; it is sufficient to show that a
representative cross-section of the class has been so
affected for an injunction to issue.”
The classic definition may be found in Romer LJ’s judgment in which leading authority?
Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957]
The first thing to consider – the thing that sets public nuisance apart is that it concerns a class of his majesty’s subjects, what will constitute to a class of his majestys subjects?
A sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of persons will vary by each case, it is not necessary for every member of the class to be affected, so long as a sufficiently representative cross section of society has been affected.
A class of persons conceived as a neighbourhood or community.
D in this case argued in order to meet the definition of public nuisance, it was necessary for their conduct to interfere with all the members of the community.
This was rejected.
Which later case helps us clarify what a class of ‘Her Majesty’s subjects’ constitutes?
R v Rimmington; Goldstein [2005]
What did Lord Roger state in this case, did Rimmington fulfil the requirement of a class of ‘Her Majesty’s subjects’?
“Suppose […] that someone makes a series of obscene
telephone calls to people living in a village… [E]ach
telephone call affects only one individual, not the
community in the village… Therefore it does not have that quality which is the hall mark of criminal public nuisance. And no such individual call can become a criminal public nuisance merely by reason of the fact that it was one of a series.”
What occured in Rimmington?
In Rimmington, the defendant had sent over 500 racially abusive letters and packages to different individuals all over the country.
What did this mean/ how did this inform us?
Question in case – racial hatred sent to a range of people, was this representative of a class of persons?
The court said no, as by the quote above.
A class is imagined as a community, a group of relatively coherent people with a definable common identity.
That common identity cannot be that they were all adversely materially affected by the defendant.
So, what was held overall in Rimmington?
Neither defendant was found guilty of public nuisance. In the first case, their Lordships emphasised that a section of the community must be affected.
It was not enough to inconvenience selected individuals.
What does public nuisance generally concern?
Its most common use, however, is in relation to claims for unreasonable interference with the claimant’s use of the highway.
Obviously, in such cases, it will be difficult to bring a claim in private nuisance unless the interference affects the use and enjoyment of the claimant’s land, and here the complaint will generally relate to the claimant’s right to pass along the highway.
Bringing an action in the tort of public nuisance, what are the requirements?
- An individual claimant will need to show that the defining elements of public
nuisance are made out i.e. that there is a nuisance “which materially affects the
reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.” - They will also need to prove that they have suffered a special injury over and
above that suffered by the public in general. - Lastly, they will need to show that the damages (‘special injury’) they have suffered
were caused by the nuisance.
Obstructing a highway and public nuisance
Obstructing a highway and public nuisance
While complaints as to the condition of the highway itself will now largely be covered by the Highways Act 1980, the claimant may wish to bring an action relating to unreasonable obstructions on the highway, what is the leading authority in these circumstances?
Demond v Pearce [1972] 1 Q.B. 498
Firstly, in order to be sucessful in a claim of public nuisance regarding a obstruction on a highway, what must the obstruction be?
The defendant’s conduct must amount to an unreasonable obstruction.
A mere temporary obstruction will not constitute an unreasonable obstruction and will not be tortious.
There is ambiguity as to whether or not unreasonable means at fault or blameworthy or if it is a purely objective criteria which does not depend on a mental component.
What occured in Demond v Pearce [1972] 1 Q.B. 498?
As noted in Dymond v Pearce, some obstructions are inevitable.
It is generally acceptable for vehicles to stop on the highway to deliver goods or to park in a lay-by, but a prima facie nuisance would be created where a vehicle is left for a considerable period without any valid justification.
- Lorry was left parked on the side of a dual carriageway. It was visible for 200m.
- Claimant was riding pillion on a motorbike and was injured when the motorbike collided with the lorry.
- Court found that the lorry driver had not parked
negligently however it was nonetheless unreasonable.
However, even though unreasonable, the claim was unsucessful, why?
However, crucially I this case the courts said okay, parking the lorry was a nuisance however that was not the cause of the accident, the cause was the carelessness of the motorbike driver.
What was stated in the judgement of the case?
“[U]sers of highways are normally confined to use for passage […] and for incidents usually associated with such use, such as temporary halts and those emergency stops which often give rise to difficulties… I am unable to accept [the trial judge’s] conclusions that the parking for many hours for the driver’s own convenience of a large lorry on a highway of sufficient importance to have a dual carriageway did not result in the creation of nuisance.”
This was a nuisance, it was an unreasonable obstruction.
Projections over a highway and public nuisance
Projections over a highway and public nuisance
There is further confusion whether fault is relevant when the claimant’s injuries are caused by an object projecting onto the highway from the defendant’s land, what is the key authority in these circumstances?
Tarry v Ashton (1876)
Firstly, what do these types of cases concern?
Archetypal cases involve the projection falling on
someone.
In such cases, what is required? and how straight forward is this requirment?
In such cases the requirement that there is an interference which caused specific harm are straightforward
What have courts drawn a distinction between?
Courts have drawn a distinction between artificial (i.e. man-made) projections and natural projections (e.g. a tree branch)
What is the main significance of the distinction?
Main significance of the distinction is whether liability is strict or fault based.
Outline a summary of public nuisance so far -
Things that stick out onto the highway at an elevation, so they are not necessarily blocking it however they may cause an injury if it were to fall on someone.
This is sufficient to satisfy the element of being an interference with a class of people. If it falls, that will demonstrate how you are specifically affected.
Courts have drawn a distinction between man-made projections and natural projections such as tree branches.
The main significance of this distinction revolves around the degree of fault required.
For man-made projections, then we are looking at strict liability, if natural, then there will be a degree of fault required.
What occured in Tarry v Ashton (1876)?
Dispute revolved around a lamp affixed to the defendant’s wall which had fallen on – and injured – the claimant.
What did Justice Lush state in Tarry v Ashton (1876)?
“A person who puts up or continues a lamp [that projects over a public highway] puts the public safety in peril, and it is his duty to keep it in such a state as not to be dangerous.”
What does this case illustrate?
- Illustrates the general proposition that we will have strict liability for artificial projections.
- Clear obligation to ensure the objection remains safe.
Which case demonstrates fault based liability for natural projections?
Noble v Harrison [1926]
What occured in Noble v Harrison [1926]?
Dispute revolved around a beech tree growing over the road.
A branch suddenly fell onto the claimant’s car/
What was stated in Noble v Harrison [1926]?
“It may be that where a heavy object is suspended over a highway and must fall into it unless supported by artificial means which can only be kept in order by the person in possession of the premises, such person is bound absolutely to maintain the attachments. But a branch of a tree is not kept from falling by artificial attachments to be maintained by man but by the natural processes which develop the tree, and it is only when accident or decay interferes that human intervention is required.”
What does this case illustrate?
That human intervention is only required in regard to natural projections where there is an element of foreseeability.
In Noble v Harrison, the court held that the defendant could only be liable if he or she knew, or should have known, of the circumstances which caused the injury.
What case complicates the distinction above?
Wringe v Cohen [1940]
What did Wringe v Cohen [1940] introduce?
Introduction of fault-based liability for artificial projection.
What occured in Wringe v Cohen [1940]?
A wall of a house (adjoining a highway) fell on the neighbours house.
What was stated by Lord Atkinson in Wringe v Cohen?
“[I]f, owing to want of repair, premises on a highway become dangerous and, therefore, a nuisance, and a passer-by or an adjoining owner suffers damage by their collapse, the occupier, or the owner if he has undertaken the duty of repair, is answerable whether he knew or ought to have known of the danger or not… On the other hand, if the nuisance is created not by want of repair, but, for example, by the act of a trespasser, or by a secret or unobservable operation of nature [e.g. subsidence] neither an occupier nor an owner responsible for repair is answerable, unless with knowledge or means of knowledge he allows the danger to continue.”
What does Wringe v Cohen illustrate?
- This case complicates the distinction above, it illustrates how generally whenever we are looking at land-based torts, we see the influence of negligence.
- Wall of house collapsed onto highway causing damage to a neighbour’s house.
- Court said the quote above.
- Saying if it is through a want of repair, then it is the failure to adequately maintain, then it will be strict liability.
- But if it is things like an act of trespass or an unforeseeable act of nature, the owner is not going to be answerable to this unless they knew about it.
The court in Wringe v Cohen recognised two defences which had been mentioned by Blackburn J in Tarry, what were they and what do they infer?
(i) where the danger had been caused by the unseen act of a trespasser, and
(ii) where the damage is due to a “secret and unobservable operation of nature” (a latent defect) of which the occupier does not know or ought not to have known.
Such defences largely undermine the idea of strict liability for projections on the highway and clearly inject an element of fault.
Here, once again, we can observe the influence of negligence on the development of the tort of nuisance.
