Tort Law, Liability, and Damages
14 Pages4326 Words67 Views
Added on 2020-05-08
Tort Law, Liability, and Damages
Added on 2020-05-08
ShareRelated Documents
university college of estate management
NEGLIGENCE2 | P a g eTort can be defined as a civil wrong done, where the actions of one prove costly for anotherperson. There are a number of different torts in the nation, including negligence, nuisance,defamation and the like. The tort law helps a person in determining the possibility for recoveringdamages for the injury sustained by them, from another person (Statsky, 2011). Negligence canbe best summed up as the breach of duty of care, which person P owed to person Q. When theactions of person P have the capability of resulting in a harm or injury to the part Q, it is the dutyof P to deploy the case so that such foreseeable harm or loss is not caused. When this duty is notfulfilled, and an injury is caused to party Q that is the case when negligence is established(Greene, 2013). In the following parts, the different aspects of different torts have been discussedin context of the case study given with regards to Susan and Austin Homes Ltd.In the first instance, the key issue relates to the possible legal action which can be taken by Susanagainst Austin Homes Ltd with regards to the vibrations and noise. Under the English law, there are two kinds of nuisance, i.e., the public and the private nuisance.Public nuisance is deemed as a crime and remains actionable under the tort law, where aparticular damage is suffered by the claimant over and above the damages which are suffered bythe public in general (Best, Barnes and Kahn-Fogel, 2014). Private nuisance on the other handdetails with protection of the rights of an occupier with regards to the unreasonable interferencewith the use or enjoyment of his land. Usually in private nuisances the parties are neighbours anda balance is exercised by the court between the competing rights of the owner of the land tomake use of the land owned by him in the manner of their choice and the right of a neighbour tonot have the enjoyment or use of land interfered with (Ward, 2010).
NEGLIGENCE3 | P a g eWhen a case of nuisance is established, the aggrieved party can apply for remedies in form ofcompensation, abatement and injunctions. For establishing a case of nuisance, there is a need toshow that there had indeed been an interference with the right to use the land (Harpwood, 2009).In the case of Christie v Davey (1893) 1 Ch 316, the claimant had been a music teacher and gaveprivate lessons at her home where her family enjoyed playing music. The claimant was living ina semi-detached house which was adjoining to the property of the defendant. A complaint ofnoise was made by the defendant on different occasions, which was not given any dueconsideration and he started shouting, beating trays and banging on walls. It was held by thecourt that the actions of defendant were motivated with malice and thus constituted as nuisance.And so, the claimant was able to get a restrain on his actions through an injunction order.In the case of Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88, the defendant had been a member who hadbeen acting on behalf of a club, i.e., the Cotswolr Motor Boat Racing Club, which used to carryout the racing of motor boats. The water sports included this motor boat racing and had beencarried out in the waters of the club since the initial periods of 1960s. In 1972, the claimantshifted in the house which had been constructed on the land which she had got from her fatherand this house was located exactly 390 yards away from the starting line of these motor boatraces. With the passage of time, the occurrence of such races was raised and the waters of theclub were used very often as a venue for international races, and for the national races as well. A legal action was raised by the claimant against the club for nuisance owing to the disturbancesshe experienced due to high noise. Her claim was successful and she was awarded damages.Though, the injunction order sought out by the claimant was not upheld by the court based onMiller v Jackson [1977] 3 WLR 20, where owing to the high walls built by the club, theinjunction order was not granted to the claimant. And so, the claimant appealed in Court of
NEGLIGENCE4 | P a g eAppeal. This appeal was allowed by the court on the basis that an injunction could be granted inexceptional situations, which were approved in this case, based on the case of Shelfer v City ofLondon Electric Lighting Co (1895) 1 Ch 287.In the given case study, Susan had purchased the house from Alison, who had purchased thehouse from Austin Homes Ltd. While Susan was living in the house she purchased, theconstruction being conducted by Austin Homes Ltd created a lot of noise and vibration due to thedelivery lories at the site on daily basis. In this case, Susan had the right of enjoying her propertyand had the right to enjoy it peacefully, without being interfered. Christie v Davey establishesthat a case of nuisance can be made where the noise disturbs the property owner. This can furtherbe clarified with the help of case of Kennaway v Thompson, and so, for the disturbance caused toSusan owing to the voices and vibrations, which disturbed her and interfered with her right toenjoy her property, she can make a claim of nuisance against Austin Homes Ltd. As a remedy,she can opt for compensation for the constant disturbance and infringement of her right. Apartfrom this, she can also apply for an injunction order, as this is an exceptional case. On the basisof Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting, mere awarding of damages would not be sufficientand there is a need to grant injunction as otherwise Austin Homes Ltd would continue theirconstruction which would continue these voices and vibrations. Hence, it is necessary for Susanto be granted injunction against Austin Homes Ltd so that Austin Homes Ltd can be stoppedfrom infringing the right of Susan to enjoy her personal property. Hence, for the first claim, the legal action taken by Susan against Austin Homes Ltd with regardsto the vibrations and noise under the tort of nuisance would enable her to get damages andinjunction order passed against Austin Homes Ltd.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Assignment on The English Tort Lawlg...
|12
|3622
|339
Tort Law: Private Nuisance, Trespass, and Defamationlg...
|7
|1707
|56
Law of Tortslg...
|6
|1320
|125
Tort - The Law of Tresspasslg...
|8
|1893
|51
Case Study on Tort Law 2022lg...
|12
|2274
|17
Case Commentary on St Helen's Smelting Co v Tippinglg...
|5
|901
|260