17. Nuisance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public

This chapter examines the provisions of tort law concerning private and public nuisance. It explains that the tort of private nuisance protects rights in the use of land, rights in the enjoyment of land, and rights in land itself so as to protect against physical damage to land. It highlights the difficulty in establishing whether private nuisance constitutes a tort of strict liability. This chapter also discusses the elements of public nuisance, which again is a difficult tort to analyse.

17. Nuisance

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public

This chapter examines the provisions of tort law concerning private and public nuisance. It explains that the tort of private nuisance protects the rights in the use of land, rights in the enjoyment of land, and rights in land itself so as to protect against physical damage to land. It highlights the difficulty in establishing whether private nuisance constitutes a tort of strict liability. This chapter also discusses the elements of public nuisance and analyses relevant court cases.

17. Nuisance

2021 ◽  
pp. 423-463
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Physical Interference ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the torts of private and public nuisance. It explains that the tort of private nuisance protects rights in the use of land, rights in the enjoyment of land, and rights in land itself. It permits actions with respect to physical interference with land as well as with sensible personal comfort in its use and enjoyment. The chapter highlights the difficulty in establishing whether private nuisance constitutes a tort of strict liability. This chapter also discusses the elements of public nuisance, which again is a difficult tort to analyse but which is concerned with interference with public rights, such as the right to pass and re-pass along the highway.

Is there a Duty to Prevent Harm in Tort? A Common Law Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-145
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common

Abstract In this paper, I will examine the extent to which the common law of tort in England and Wales imposes a duty to prevent harm on public authorities and private individuals. As will be seen, the starting point for the common law is that such liability should, in both cases, be regarded as exceptional. This must, however, be weighed against duties to prevent harm that arise under the torts of negligence and breach of statutory duty. Public authorities may also face claims that their failure to prevent harm is in breach of ECHR arts 2 or 3. While the law is complex, this paper identifies three key arguments that explain the current legal position at common law, namely that: (i) tort law should treat private and public parties alike: (ii) human rights claims should be treated as distinct from private law claims and (iii) libertarian concerns signify that a duty to prevent harm should be exceptional and needs to be justified. While these arguments provide both an explanation of and a justification for the current law, this article questions to what extent the treatment of public authority liability may be regarded as unduly harsh on vulnerable claimants.

Introduction

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Cooter ◽  
Ariel Porat
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Cost

This book examines how the law of torts, contracts, and restitution can be improved by showing how private law reduces the cost of accidents, lubricates bargains, and encourages unrequested benefits. It considers the two pervasive rules of tort law that provide incentives for actors to reduce accident costs: strict liability and negligence. It also explains how contract law achieves effiency through the remedy of damages and how restitution law allows benefactors to recover gains that their beneficiaries wrongfully obtained from them. The book makes three central claims: misalignments in tort law should be removed; in contract law, promisee's incentives should be improved; and the law should recognize some right of compensation for those who produce unrequested benefits. Each claim is based on the desire to reform private law and to make it more effective in promoting social welfare.

11. Private law and environmental protection

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Bell ◽  
Donald McGillivray ◽  
Ole W. Pedersen ◽  
Emma Lees ◽  
Elen Stokes
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Remediation ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Essential Characteristic ◽  
Environmental Liability ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the torts—or civil wrongs—traditionally relied on in environmental litigation: private and public nuisance, trespass, negligence, and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. It discusses and outlines statutory nuisance and various instances of statutory civil liability, some of which go beyond providing remedies for individuals and provide for wider environmental clean-up. Traditionally, private law has attempted to serve the function of controlling environmental damage. However, the chapter shows that the similarity is often superficial; the essential characteristic of private law is to regulate relationships between individuals by the balancing of individual interests. It concludes by briefly considering the EU Environmental Liability Directive, which has some similarities with private law remedies but is primarily an administrative mechanism for environmental remediation in defined situations.

17. Liability for Animals

2019 ◽  
pp. 510-527
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Law Students ◽  
Social Concern ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Rules

Liability for Animals raises further questions about the role, and future, of strict liability in the context of the law of tort. This chapter examines the special rules of strict liability under the Animals Act 1971, including those concerning liability for straying livestock, liability for ‘dangerous animals’, and liability for dogs. This is followed by discussions of defences, remoteness of damage and strict liability, and liability for dogs. The wording of the Animals Act 1971 is notoriously complex, and the law in this area is, for this reason, the object of must frustration for courts, and tort law students, alike. Even so, the law governing liability of animals concerns matters of social concern and, for the time-being at least, it seems that the Act is here to stay.

11. The Tortious Liability of Businesses in Negligence and Nuisance

Business Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 269-299
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public

This chapter first discusses one of the most important torts—negligence—which may be commonly seen in instances of personal injury. This is followed by a discussion on acts of private and public nuisance. Torts law is particularly relevant to businesses as they need to be aware of the extent of their potential liabilities to workers, visitors to business premises, other businesses, and to the general public. This extends to ensuring that safe systems of work exist and appropriate insurance is maintained. Contrary to civil law, torts law imposes obligations on parties who wish to undertake duties freely and agree to be legally bound via contracts without, necessarily, prior agreement. The duty is to take reasonable care and not intentionally or negligently cause harm or damage.

13. Rylands v Fletcher

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Nuisance protects against ‘indirect’ interference with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of land. There are two categories of nuisance: public nuisance and private nuisance. Private nuisance refers to an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land. In order to sue in private nuisance, the claimant must have an interest in the land affected. This chapter examines the elements of liability in private and public nuisance and discusses the differences between them.. It also looks at the relationship between nuisance and fault-based liability and evaluates the human rights dimension to the law of nuisance.

12. Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law of nuisance. ‘Nuisance’ relates to three very different actions: private nuisance, public nuisance, and statutory nuisance. All three are land-related torts, occurring indirectly, and often concern neighbour disputes and environmental wrongs. Unlike negligence, in nuisance the law is concerned less with the nature of the defendant’s conduct than with its effect upon the claimant. Private nuisance must have an element of continuation and damages will not be recoverable for physical injury. The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) established a new tort which provided for strict liability of defendants in certain nuisance-related situations.

scholarly journals The Mistaken Restriction of Strict Liability to Uncommon Activities

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Shavell
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Activity Requirement ◽  
Negligence Rule

Abstract Courts generally insist that two criteria be met before imposing strict liability rather than basing liability on the negligence rule. The first—that the injurer’s activity must be dangerous—is sensible because strict liability possesses general advantages over the negligence rule in controlling risk. But the second—that the activity must be uncommon—is ill-advised because it exempts all common activities from strict liability no matter how dangerous they are. Thus, the harm generated by the large swath of common dangerous activities—from hunting, to construction, to the transmission of natural gas—is inadequately regulated by tort law. After developing this theme and criticizing ostensible justifications for the uncommon activity requirement, the article addresses the question of how it arose. The answer is that its legal pedigree is problematic: it appears to have been invented by the authors of the first Restatement of Torts. The conclusion is that the uncommon activity requirement for the imposition of strict liability should be eliminated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document