Download file to see previous pages...
hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another." The forms of private nuisances are almost countless, thus resulting in the impossibility of any kind of classification (Putney, 1908).
A person who owns a proprietorship interest in the land in which nuisance is inflicted can sue and succeed to claims. For instance the person must be an owner or a party, or be in special custody or occupation of it like tenant or under a licence to reside. Exceptions to the above rule may also be present as in the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf.1
The case of Malone v Laskey2 is an exception of the rule that a licensee can sue. In the mentioned case when the wife of the licensee used the toilet a cistern fell on her head due to the trembling of machinery in the nearby property and she was hurt. But when she claimed it failed because her husband was only a licensee and so it could not be proved that she held a proprietary interest in the land herself. But had this case been occurred now she would have succeeded under negligence. But an exception to this is that the wife of a home owner can sue since she also has a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home Hunter v Canary Wharf. Actually according to law jus tertii meaning right of a third person, is not a good defence to sue in a private nuisance. But if a person is in exclusive possession of the land can sue even if title to it cannot be proved Foster v Warblington.3
Till very lately it was resolved, that the complainant must have an interest in the land so that he could sue in private nuisance. But then in the case of Khorasandijian v. Bush4 it was in particular affirmed that it was no longer suitable to restrict the right to sue by indication to proprietary interest in the land. In this case Lord Dillon said the following…”it is ridiculous if in this present age the law that is the making of deliberately harassing and pestering phone calls to a person is only actionable in the civil courts if a
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Nuisance ( torts law) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1565264-nuisance-torts-law
(Nuisance ( Torts Law) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
“Nuisance ( Torts Law) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1565264-nuisance-torts-law.
The paper will dissect the nature and extent of these tortuous actions and the remedies available to both parties. Private nuisance is the form is the tort in which ones right in the enjoyment of property is interfered with. It can either take the form of invasion or withdrawal or both (LaMance, n.d).
The house is located on Highfield Road opposite a factory unit (situated on Highfield Road in the Edward’s Industrial estate) owned by Harrington & Nephew Ltd. This is an area in which pre-cast concrete units are manufactured. Harrington & Nephew Ltd. was recently successful in winning various contracts which have resulted in the factory operating all day and throughout the night.
Instead they should have willingly vacated the land and if the need arouse return back later with a warrant allowing them to search the property forcefully in the event that Tom refused them to do so1. The Plaintiff, Tom could claim to have suffered personal injury on his person when the defendant, officer Falcon laid his hand on Tom’s shoulder (McNamara v Duncan (1971) 26 ALR 584, 5872 (Fox J).
Because of the various of history and the connection between the two forms, private nuisance has come to cover different types of conduct on the part of defendants. Indeed, beyond saying that all these instances are actionable because they are intolerable inconveniences, the only other common element is that they affect the claimants' use or enjoyment of their land.
It means a conduct which creates a risk of causing damage, rather than a state of mind. The House of Lords in 'Donoghue v. Stevenson(1932) A.C. 562), threats negligence, where there is a duty to take care, as specific tort in itself, and not simply as an element is some more complex relationship or in some specialized breach of duty .
An interference with interests can be either by affecting materially the land of the claimant; or if his use or enjoyment is affected; or where there has been interference with the servitude and similar rights over the land.
A difference between material and other interference has been given in St Helens.
d a duty of care to their patrons Mickey and family in that the fishing vessel and accessories should have been kept free from defects especially as the ones involved in dangerous sports. Though the captain of the vessel Neil already warned the service provider of the defective
to tort laws, the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine states that, people who own land may be held responsible for accidents that occur to children trespassing on the land (Okrent 22). This law applies if the risk is caused by dangerous objects, or some features of the lands that are