Unit 3 - Nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, Vicarious Liability Flashcards
What is private nuisance?
Unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of an occupier’s land.
Case - establishing that the claimant must have legal interest in the land to bring a claim of nuisance
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) - TV reception
Case - showing that the Defendant does not need to own or occupy the land the nuisance is emitting from
Jones Ltd v Portsmouth CC (2002) - tree roots
Give four potential examples of “interference” i/r/t nuisance
Flooding Smells Encroachment Noise Physical damage Cricket balls A brothel
What use of the land is required by the defendant for the interference to qualify as unlawful?
Unreasonable use of land.
What are the four considerations of the court when determing whether use of the land is unreasonable?
Duration, nature of locality, sensitivity, and malice
How does the nature of the locality affect unreasonable use of land i/r/t nuisance? What is an example of this?
A higher level of disturbance may be permitted in some industrial areas than others. Hirose Electrical v Peak Ingredients (2011) - curry smell
Case - showing that nature of locality is irrelevant in the event of physical damage
St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) - smelting tree
How does the duration of the nuisance affect unreasonable use of land i/r/t nuisance?
The longer a nuisance lasts, the more likely it is to be unreasonable.
Case - showing that a temporary activity may still count as nuisance
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros (1914) - building work at night
How does the sensitivity of the land affect unreasonable use of land i/r/t nuisance? What is an example of this?
If the Claimant is abnormally sensitive, the Defendant will not be liable unless the activity would cause nuisance to a person using the land in a reasonable way. Robinson v Kilvert (1889) - warm boxes
How does malice affect unreasonable use of land i/r/t nuisance? What is an example of this?
If there is malice from the defendant, it is more likely to be unreasonable. Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (1936) - breeding foxes
How has the court ruled on the defences of the nuisance being a public benefit, or of the nuisance having existed prior to the claimant coming to the land?
These are not defences allowed by the Court.
Case - establishing test of foreseeability of damage in nuisance and in Rylands v Fletcher
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather PLC (1994) - solvent borehole.
Case - establishing whether type of damage was foreseeable
The Wagon Mound (1961) - oil on water
Describe the significance of Rylands v Fletcher (1868).
Although originally a case, this has become a tort in its own right in relation to the escape of non-naturally stored material onto adjoining property that does damage.
What liability is owed under Rylands v Fletcher?
Strict liability - no fault is required by the Defendant.
What are the five requirements needed for an action under Rylands v Fletcher?
- The Defendant accumulated on the Defendant’s land
- A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
- Which then escaped
- The use of the land was non-natural
- The damage is not remote
What are the two requirements needed to qualify as “accumulation” i/r/t Rylands?
- The Defendant must bring the hazardous thing to their land and keep it there
- The thing must be there for the Defendant’s purposes
Case - showing that the thing that escapes cannot already be on the land i/r/t Rylands
Giles v Walker (1890) - natural thistles
Case - showing that the thing that escapes must be for the Defendant’s purposes i/r/t Rylands
Dunne v North West Gas Board (1964) - gas main
Case - showing that thing that escapes need not be the thing accumulated i/r/t Rylands
Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918) - explosive rocks
Case - showing that the thing that escapes need not be hazardous i/r/t Rylands
Shiffman v Grand Priory of St John (1936) - flagpole
Case - showing that injury on the Defendant’s land is not actionable i/r/t Rylands
Read v Lyons (1947) - explosive factory
Case - showing that what is considered non-natural use changes over time i/r/t Rylands
TransCo v Stockport MBC (2004) - gas and water supply pipes
Case - showing that there is no liability for pure economic loss i/r/t Rylands
Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966) - cattle virus
Define vicarious liability.
A third person has legal responsibility for the unlawful actions of another, usually an employer’s responsibility for the actions of their employee.
Give two reasons why employers are vicariously liable.
- Employer is more likely to be able to compensate the victim and can be expected to have insured against the liability.
- The tort will have been commited as a result of an activity being performed on the employer’s behalf.
What are the three questions required to show if an employer is vicariously liable?
- Was a tort committed?
- Was the tortfeasor an employee?
- Was the employee acting in the course of employment when the tort was committed?
What was the case which established the rule for vicarious liability owed for the actions of contractors, and what is the test applied?
Cox v MOJ (2016) - prison kitchen
- Harm was wrongfully done by an individual
- The individual carries on activities as an integral part of business activites carried on by the defendant and for its benefits
- Where the wrongful act is a risk created by the defendant in assigning activities to that individual
What acts are an employer liable for?
- Wrongful acts authorised by the employer
2. Acts which are wrongful ways of doing something authorised by the employer
Case - landmark case of determining vicarious liability
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC (2016) - petrol assault
What is the close-connection test i/r/t vicarious liability?
- What function or field of activies have been entrusted to the employee?
- Is there sufficient connection between this and the subsequent tort for it to br reasonable for the employer to be held liable?
