View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Nuisance in Tort Legal Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nuisance-in-tort-legal-cases 1/3
8/6/2019 Nuisance in Tort Legal Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nuisance-in-tort-legal-cases 2/3
Harper v. G. Haden 1933
A building next to a fruit shop was renovated.The owner said that this was a public nuisance.
No public nuisance.
Only a temporary inconvenience, law of give and take.You have to prove that you have a special inconvenience if you claim for public nuisance.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emmett 1936
The defendant had ordered his son to fire guns on his land as near as possible to the plaintiff's land in order that theplaintiff's vixen might miscarry.
The plaintiffs were awarded damages (nuisance).
If the law concedes to people the privilege of doing things without conferring upon them a positive right, the elementof 'malice' may render an otherwise lawful activity unlawful.Had there been no evidence of spite, and had the damage been caused without malicious intent, the plaintiffs wouldhave had no claim.
Khorasandjian v. Bush 1993
A man could not accept the break-up. He threatened his wife with telephone calls and damaged her car, for which hewas prosecuted (conditional discharge). He did not stop and threatened to kill her (six weeks of imprisonment). Thetelephone calls continued, also her mother, her new boyfriend and his mother (injunction to stop all thesethings).Being sued, he claimed there was no such tort.
Injunction to prevent and to stop mental stress.
We do not have to wait until somebody is really badly injured; there was a tendency to cause a nervous shock.Look at the problem as a whole.
This conduct could be brought under the WILKINSON v. DOWNTOWN (1897) rule (intentional injury) even though itwas not a nervous shock.It was also held that she could claim in negligence.Compare JANVIER v. SWEENY (1919) (assault).
Leakey v. National Trust 1980
The defendants permitted a hillside to collapse through weathering upon the plaintiff's land.
They were liable.
Nuisance is also possible if someone being able to abate it, permits it to continue once he knows that it exists upon
his premises (must be reasonable).See also: CAMINER v. NORTHERN AND LONDON INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. (1951)
Malone v. Laskey 1907
Vibrations from an engine upon adjoining premises caused a cistern to fall upon and injure the wife of an occupier.
The wife had no right of action in nuisance.
She had no proprietary or possessory interest, actual or prospective, in the land.As the the law NOW stands, she would have a claim in negligence; Compare KHORASANDJIAN v. BUSH (1993).
8/6/2019 Nuisance in Tort Legal Cases
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nuisance-in-tort-legal-cases 3/3
R. v. Lloyd 1882
Three attorneys in Clifford's Inn claimed against public noise.
Three is not sufficient, rather a private matter.
Keyword: unreasonableness, law of give and take.Note that in Canada seven members of a family are sufficient.
Robinson v. Kilvert 1889
The plaintiff occupied the upper part of a house and the defendant the lower.For the purpose of his business the defendant had to use a furnace.The heat thus generated damaged some brown paper which the plaintiff had in store.This paper was exceptionally sensitive to heat.
No claim in nuisance.
Ordinary paper would not have been damaged under these circumstances.A person who is abnormally sensitive must put up with inconveniences which cause harm to him by reason of thisexceptional sensitivity.
Stone v. Bolton 1950
The plaintiff was on the highway near a cricket ground when she was injured by a ball hit out of the ground.
The plaintiff failed to recover in nuisance.
Balls had seldom before been known to be hit onto the road.The duration or repetition of an obnoxious activity may sometimes be relevant.Compare: CASTLE v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S LINKS LTD. (1922) This case was later reversed by the House of Lords, but upon other grounds.
Recommended