Torts of Strict(er) Liability Flashcards
Nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher & Product Liability
What is private nuisance?
A use of land which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighboring land. This must be substantial and is judged according to the character of the locality
Tort of land, not of people
What does St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping tell us about the type of nuisance actionable?
Where nuisance is in the form of actual physical damage, character of the locality is irrelevant, this only applies where nuisance is sensible personal discomfort (e.g. noise, smell)
What factors can be taken into account when deciding if something amounts to nuisance?
- St Helen’s Smelting, locality of the nuisance
- Halsey v Esso Petroleum, time the nuisance takes place
- Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, public utility not relevant
Is the malice of the defendant relevant when deciding a nuisance?
- Bradford v Pickles, court originally ruled malice was not relevant, diverting percolating water was not illegal since the claimant had no right to the water
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, ruled the defendants malice was relevant where it has a direct impact on the reasonableness. Did not overturn Bradford, but likely confined it to that fact pattern
Who can be liable for an action in nuisance?
- The creator of the nuisance
- Someone who continues the nuisance. He does so if with knowledge or presumed knowledge of its existence takes no steps to bring it to an end when he has ample time (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan)
- Where the nuisance is adopted and not stopped, extends the principle to overwhelming acts of nature (Leaky v National Trust)
- Southwark LBC v Mills, landlords cannot be held liable for nuisance unless what they have authorisied is an actionable nuisance in the first place
Who can sue for an action in nuisance?
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Those with a proprietary interest in the land can sue, licensees and family members of tenants could not sue
How will the existence of nuisance be judged?
Robinson v Kilvert
Nuisance will be judged against the effect on an ordinary person, this is objective rather than subjectively asking if the claimant was effected
What recent case on private nuisance has developed the required principles?
Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
* Must ask whether interference with the land was wrongful
* If this was an abnormal use of land, then yes
* If the use of the land is ordinary, then liability will only arise if the use of land is not conventionally done
* It is not the responsibility of the victims to protect against an interference (e.g. arguing claimants should put up curtains or privacy glass not a good defence)
What defences are available in private nuisance?
- Statutory Authority, if the claimant can show they are carrying out a duty under statute, e.g. Allen v Gulf Oil
- Prescription, if the activity has been ongoing without compliant from the claimant for 20 years
- ‘Coming to the Nuisance’ is not a valid defence per Coventry v Lawrence
What is public nuisance?
- AG v PYA Quarries: Nuisance is public if it materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of her majestys subjects. Sufficient to show a represenrative cross-section of the class has been affected for injunction to be issued
- S78 Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022
What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
A person who for his own purposes brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The use of the land must amount to a non-natural use
How did the case of Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather expand the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
- Reasonable foreseeability is a requirement of the tort
- Defendant will not be liable if he has taken all reasonable care and skill to prevent the escape from happening
- The rule is an extension of the law on nuisance therefore it should apply here as well (and due to its nature being strict liability)
What is the most recent case on Rylands v Fletcher that confirmed the law?
Transco Plc v Stockport MBC
Confirmed the rule was still present in English law, said that because the tort is strict liability the mischief and danger test should be stricter. It is immaterial that the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen an escape
What defences may be raised against a claim in Rylands v Fletchers?
- Statutory Authority
- Consent of the claimant
- Vis Major, but this will only satisfy where it is an act of nature beyond all human foresight, i.e. heavy rainfall not enough but violent thunderstorm, tornado, etc. may be
How can product liability be established in negligence?
Donoghue v Stevenson
A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such form as to show he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form they left him, and with knowledge that absence of reasonable care will result in injury to the consumers life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care
How can product liability be established under strict liability?
Consumer Protection Act 1987
* S2 provides whom may be liable for a defect in a prouct that causes damage including the producer and importer of the products
* S3 provides the meaning of a defect, if the safety is such as persons generally are entitled to expect. This is subject to considerations about the product in question
* S4 provides defences, including the defect not existing at the relevant time or the state of scientific / technical knowledge was not sufficient to know
* S5 provides the damage that gives rise to liability
What are some key cases on product liability?
- A v National Blood Authority: Where there is a known risk that products may result in a defect, a producter cannot evade responsibility by arguing they were unable to identify the prodcuts in which the defect would occur
- Wilkes v Depuy: There was no defect in the product as it complied with all relevant mandatory standards, failure resulted from a small risk and this was not because of a problem in design
