Tort Flashcards
A business owner operates a boutique clothing store in a busy commercial district. Recently, a bakery opened next door and began baking fresh bread and pastries starting at 4:00 AM every morning. The bakery’s early morning operations produce loud noise from machinery and emit smoke, which seeps into the boutique. The smoke is damaging some of the clothes and making the clothes smell. The business owner has noticed that customers are deterred by the smoke and early morning noise, leading to a decline in sales. The bakery owner argues that early morning baking is essential for providing fresh products to morning commuters and that such activities are typical in commercial districts.
Has the bakery committed a private nuisance?
Yes, because the early morning noise and smoke emissions are frequent, causing property damage, and interfering with the business owner’s use of the property.
A homeowner lives in a peaceful rural area and operates a small bed and breakfast. Recently, a nearby farmer started using a new piece of machinery to harvest crops. The machinery operates from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM every day, producing loud noise and vibrations. The homeowner’s guests have begun to complain, and the homeowner has noticed a significant drop in bookings. The homeowner cannot enjoy the peace and quiet that they once enjoyed before the farmer started using the new machinery. The farmer argues that the machinery is essential for their agricultural business and that such noise is common in farming communities.
Has the farmer committed a private nuisance?
Yes, because the interference is frequent and lasts for long periods, making it unreasonable in a rural area.
A chemical factory has been emitting fumes for the past 22 years, affecting the air quality in a nearby residential area. The fumes have an incredibly bad smell and the smell is particularly strong in the heat of the summer months, making it hard for residents to enjoy their gardens. One resident (the ‘resident’), who recently bought a house in the area, has filed a private nuisance claim against the factory owner. The factory owner argues that they have a right to continue their activities due to prescription. There has been no previous legal action against the factory regarding the fumes.
Can the factory owner successfully use the defence of prescription in this case?
Yes, because the factory’s fumes have been an actionable nuisance for over 20 years without any legal action being taken.
A pharmaceutical company releases a new pain relief medication. The medication is marketed as safe for all adults and claims to have no significant side effects. However, several users report severe allergic reactions after taking the medication. The packaging includes a general warning about possible allergic reactions but does not list specific symptoms or risk factors. One user suffers a life-threatening reaction and decides to sue the manufacturer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987).
Under the CPA 1987, what factors will determine whether the medication is considered defective?
The medication is considered defective if it does not meet the safety expectations of the public, especially considering the claims of safety and the lack of specific warnings about severe allergic reactions.
