Tutorial 1 Torts Law ULT 2622 PDF

Preview

Summary

Torts Law ULT 2722 Question and Answers...

Description

TUTORIAL 1 QUESTION 1 To provide comfort to persons who have proprietary interests in land and to members of society generally, through control of environmental conditions. Balancing of competing interest between members of public. (Right to enjoy property and life in peace.)

We can define the tort of nuisance as an act which gives rise to unlawful, unwarranted, or unreasonable annoyance or discomfort to the plaintiff, and which results in damage to the property of the plaintiff or interfere with his use and enjoyment of his land. For making an act of nuisance actionable under the law of torts, the following essentials must be satisfied, which are first is wrongful act by the defendant. This may include any action which is prima facie not legal and unreasonable in the eyes of a prudent man. If the plaintiff is extra sensitive and finds the action of the Defendant to be unreasonable due to his sensitivity, which otherwise is reasonable as per a prudent man, the action for nuisance cannot arise. (Caveat) Secondly, is damage or loss or inconvenience caused to the plaintiff. The next essentiality requires a substantive damage or inconvenience to be caused to the plaintiff. The maxim “De minimis non curat lex” comes into play and provides that law shall not consider trifles or minimal damage claimed by the plaintiff due to his own sensitivity. Nevertheless, if the act of the defendant involves the hampering of a legal rights of the plaintiff, nuisance comes into play. In Ushaben v Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, where the plaintiff sued the defendant against the screening of the movie “Jai Santoshi Maa” claiming that it hurts the religious sentiments of a particular Hindu community, the court dismissed the plea stating that hurt to religious feeling was not an actionable wrong and the plaintiff is free to not watch the movie again. Hence it was held that in order to claim damages for nuisance, the interference shall be in a state of continuing wrong.

QUESTION 2 PRIVATE NUISANCE An unlawful, substantial and unreasonable interference with a person’s use, comfort, enjoyment and any interest that a person may have over his land. Creates a cause of action in tort even if only one

PUBLIC NUISANCE An act or omission which inflicts damage, injury or inconvenience on subjects of the State or on members of a class who come within the sphere or neighbourhood of its operation, and it might affect some members to a greater extent than others. Can only be actionable as a tort if a class of people is

person is affected

affected.

Christie v Davey (1893)

Attorney-General v PYA Quarries

-The plaintiff was a music teacher and held musical

-Defendant used a blasting system in their quarry

parties in his house. The defendant, his next-door

which caused noise and vibrations, and threw out

neighbour, deliberately tried to disturb both lessons

dust, stones and splinters, which affected people

and parties by blowing whistles, banging trays,

living nearby.

shrieking, and hammering on the wall.

-Held: this could amount to public nuisance which

-The court held that this malicious motive made the

they defined as ‘any nuisance which materially

defendant’s conduct unreasonable and a nuisance. affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a Had he not been trying to disturb the lessons, he

class of her Majesty’s subjects’.

might have had the right to make a noise, just as the plaintiff did with his lessons and parties.

Pacific Engineering v Haji Ahmad Rice Mill Special damage: personal discomfort, injury to construction material -C brought an action for an injunction to restrain the defendants from (a) burning rice husks in the compound of their premises, bringing, or permitting to remain on their premises rice husks of such quantity and in such manner that by being carried by wind or otherwise to the plaintiff’s premises they cause injury to the plaintiff’s property or their employee, invitees and servants. -Held: C have produced ample evidence to show injury to property and interference with personal comfort caused by the smoke, ashes, dust and rice husks which emanate from the defendant’s premises

No need to prove special damage

and that these constitute a nuisance in law; Persons affected must have suffered special damage London Council -D council built some ferry terminals in the River Thames which caused excessive silting (which means being blocked by clay or fine sand carried by running water and deposited as a sediment) on the riverbed and this caused inconvenience to river users in general, but the C was more affected than most as access to their jetty was blocked and they had spent a lot of money having the riverbed around it dredged.

Nuisance must arise from the defendant’s use of the

-Held: This amounted to special damage. Nuisance can arise from activities not related to the

land.

use of the land.

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

R v Johnson

-On D’s land was a ditch in which a pipe or culvert

-The defendant had used public telephones to cause

was placed for carrying off rainwater, the pipe not

nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm and distress.

being laid by the respondents, or with their

He had made hundreds of obscene telephone calls to

knowledge or consent, and thus by a trespasser.

at least 13 women and was convicted of causing a

They, however, subsequently became aware, through

public nuisance. He argued that no call caused

their servants, of its existence and they in fact used it

distress to more than one person, and that it was

for the draining of their fields. To prevent leaves or

wrong to aggregate them.

other matter blocking the opening of the pipe a

-Held: Following the PYA case, nuisances against a

grating was placed, not at some little distance from

sufficiently large number of individuals could

its opening where it would have been effective, but

amount to a public nuisance.

on the top of the pipe itself, with the consequence that during a heavy rainstorm the pipe became choked with leaves, so that the water overflowed on to the appellant’s premises causing damage. -Held:D must be taken to have had knowledge of the existence of the unguarded pipe on their land, notwithstanding that it was placed there by a trespasser, and, consequently, they were responsible for the damage caused to the appellant. Elements:

Elements:

Substantial interference

1.Class of society

-use, enjoyment (noise, sound)

-no specific number

Wheeler v JJ Saunders

-case to case basis

Woon Tan Kan – radioactive gases

Andrea v Selfridge and Co Ltd – loss 1 night sleep due to excessive noise.

-physical damage(cracks) 2.Special damage -suffered personal inconvenience Goh Chat Ngee v Toh Yan & Another

QUESTION 3 Nuisance is of bigger class than Trespass to land. Trespass to land has physical interference and it is actionable per se. The test is whether there was direct physical interference. Nuisance interferes with plaintiff’s interest over his and does not require physical entry but should prove special damage. Trespass to land has direct entry onto plaintiff’s land and does not need to prove damage....