A Detailed Report on the Law of Tort: Negligence and Nuisance Analysis

This report provides an introduction to the Law of Tort, focusing on civil wrongs and compensation for victims. It covers the application of case law and the finding of negligence in various scenarios. The report includes an analysis of three case studies related to negligence, examining elements such as duty and breach of duty. Furthermore, it compares and contrasts private and public nuisance, supported by relevant case law. The analysis extends to factors that lead to a finding of nuisance in given cases, with specific examples. The report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of tort law principles and their practical application through detailed case studies, offering insights into legal responsibilities and outcomes.

Introduction to Law of Tort

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................1
1.1: Justify, application of case law and finding of negligence .................................................1
(a): Overview of the case 1.........................................................................................................1
(b): Overview of case 2...............................................................................................................2
(c): Overview of the case 3.........................................................................................................3
TASK 2............................................................................................................................................4
2.1: Compare, with the use of case-law, the feature of private and public nuisance..................4
TASK 3............................................................................................................................................5
3.1: Analysis of relevant factors that would lead to finds nuisance in the given case................5
(a): Case overview.......................................................................................................................5
(b): Case overview......................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Tort is associated with the civil wrongs caused by an individual and other legal entities.
The main objectives of tort is to provide compensation to the victims of civil wrongs for the loss,
damages or any kind of injury that they have suffered. It implies acts that curve or twist societal
rules ruling out affecting to other. This project provides information about application of case
law, the finding of negligence in given situation. Apart from this, use of case, feature of private
and public nuisance is also been discussed under this report. Moreover, proper analysis of all the
factors in two case studies are illustrated in this project (Koziol, 2012).
TASK 1
1.1: Justify, application of case law and finding of negligence
(a): Overview of the case 1
According to the mentioned case of Diana; which is preparing her garden for the spring
blooms. After working of couple of hours of potting and digging in the front of garden she
decides to take few minute of break. Diana goes into house to make a cup of tea. At that period
of time, one of Diana’s neighbours Thomas comes back from pub and attack another neighbours
Clare (Harris, 2015).
Application of case law:
Under this particular situation, Diana is not liable for all these issues as she was not
available at the crime spot when the incidents was occurred. These are not considered as
deliberate actions but instead available in case individual or entity fails to act as a reasonable
person to someone whom she is liable too. As negligent actions found in such particular tort
leads to Clare serious physical and mental injuries. There are certain elements which constitute a
negligent tort such as:
Duty: The primary responsibility of Diana is to take immediate initiative either by filing
case against Thomas for the attack which he done to Clare. She is liable to take all necessary
actions which will proves that plaintiff is victim. But in this case, there is no such kind of
evidences found that because she neglected her duty (Goldberg, 2012).
Breach of duty: It is not enough for Clare to prove that Thomas owed him. The major
issues are that Diana knowns all the facts that Thomas is heavy drinker. But still she left the
spades in the garden that cause serious injuries to Clare.
1

Justification: As per the above case analysis, it has been justified that Diana has not been
fouud in breaching of the law of negligence as she would have not been present at the crime
scene. The entire case exercised under the same circumstances. diana was makiing tea inside the
house so she cannot be found in case of Thomas and clare. A negligent tort can be summed up as
an individual’s failure to sensibly exercise rational or caring actions.
(b): Overview of case 2
As per the case scenario, it has been analysed that one of the recent qualified Dr
Schumacher’s is analysing the condition of one its patient Gene, who is deal with the case of
weight loss. Doctors after making analysis prescribed her a new types of weight lost tablet. But
there are negative reviews in the special journal of cardiology about this drug that warning
against the risk to the patients. Although, gene is impressed with the drug performance but after
taking it for 4 weeks suffers a heart attack (Posner, 2014).
Application of case law:
Under this mentioned case, Dr Schumacher’s has not gone through all the reviews that
are provided under the journal of cardiology which is clearly indicating that this drug is injurious
to patients. Without knowing all the drawbacks, he prescribed that particular tablet to Gene. This
drug caused a serious damage to the Gene for 4 weeks that results her a heart attack. There are
certain problems with both doctors and Gene that clearly indicating the tort of negligence’s. It is
being further understand by using basic elements of negligence such as:
Case law: Alison vs David Middleton [2003]
Under this case, Alison is the one who is facing a serious issues regarding stomach pain.
But because of David's fault, he has to face severe issues because of expired drug. The Alison
files, compliant towards David. The court has found David as guilty as he was not taken into
account the date of expiry of that particular medicine that cause stomach pain.
Duty: In the provide case, the basic duty of Dr Schumacher’s is to keep record regarding
the journal of cardiology that has recently provided negative review about the drug before giving
to Gene. But, he refuses to do so that lead Gene to suffers a heart attack.
Breach of duty: As a medical professional, Dr Schumacher’s must have to go through all
the cases and reviews about the tablets before prescribing it to their patient. But he breaches the
duty by neglecting the matter (Owen, 2014).
2

Justification: After making proper analysis of case situation, it has been justifying that
Dr Schumacher’s is the only person who is liable for the case of Gene. The damage done by the
drug is clear case of negligence that proves that doctors has not obey his role according towards
the patient. It will lead Gene to suffer from a heart attack.
(c): Overview of the case 3
According to the mentioned case, it has been seen that Raman with his new BMW case
decided to test their credential on the motorway. Because of his negligence, a road accident
occurs in which Sarah which is vehicle drivers got injured. After medical check-ups the medics
recommended to take rest of at least 6 months. But after 4 weeks at home, Sarah decided to go
back to work and 2 days later she collapses and break her arm (Mees, Driessen and Runhaar,
2012).
Application of case law:
Under this case, Ramon claims that he is the one who is liable for the accident that is
done to Sarah. The basic instruction that are needed to be followed while taking test drive
because of which Sarah stroked a road accident. She gets extremely affected with this accident
that made her to take 6-month rest as prescribed by the doctors. After 4 weeks again she broken
her arm due to collapse in the offices. There is certain legal tort of negligence which will be
associated with the Ramon.
George Vs. Miller [2007]
Under the case, George Rooney has hit Richard Miller by his car while he was riding his
bike in the streets of London. This has lead to bed rest being suggested to Richard Miller, but he
decided to oversee the views of Doctor and decided to go for work. This has created more
problem for Miller.
Under the case, The court Held that Miller was responsible for negligence of medical
advice given and thus George can not be held liable for the accident that has taken place with
miller in the premises of office.
Duty: Ramon is required to read all the safety rules and instruction before taking test
drive of his new BMW car. While Sarah duty is to take complete rest of 6-month which is being
prescribed by the doctor.
3

Breach of duty: Under this give case scenario, Ramon has breach his duty by taking test
drive without reading all the driving instructions. One the other hand, Sarah has not followed all
the instruction that is prescribed by the doctors.
Justification: On the basis of case analysis, it has been seen that both the parties are
equally liable for breaching of tort. Ramon claims were not liable for her broken arm because she
didn't follow the prescription of doctors. As sarah got injured badly in the accident. The failure to
exercise reasonable care must be results in actual damage to Sarah to whom the Ramon owed a
duty of care.
TASK 2
2.1: Compare, with the use of case-law, the feature of private and public nuisance
Nuisance is common legal law tort. It means that causes offence, trouble or any kind of
injury. It can be either public or private nuisance. In case, interference is consequential, it
amounts to a clause of nuisance. In case the act of two or more people is working independently
can cause nuisance, although the act has not been associated with the individual persons.
Public nuisance: It is said to be a common nuisance. It leads to an effective commission of
a crime. It basically means interference with the rights of public and punishable offense. Like
for example, obstructing a public way through digging a trench or by constructing structure.
These kinds of obstructions can cause inconveniences to plenty of people but no one is liable to
take civil actions. To avoid multiples suits, the laws make public nuisance only in case offense
are categorise under a criminal law (Shavell, 2013).
Case law: Rose V. Milles (1815) 4 M&S.101:
The offender has illegally attached his barged across the public passable neck. This had
restricted the way of petitioners barges and plaintiff had to face expenses in despatch the cargo
and moving it to the similar land. It was held that special harms are being cause by the plaintiff.
Private nuisance: It is not only related with public but also associated with private which
is a civil crime (Private Nuisance, 2017). There is various necessary private nuisance, they are
mentioned below:
 Irrational interference
 Interference with the use of land
 Damage
4

Interference causes injury to the property of accusers or any anxiety related with the
pleasure of material things by the plaintiff. Each interference cannot amount to a nuisance; it
should be unreasonable.
Case law: Helen’s Smelting Co. V. Tipping
In this case, the smokes that defendant corporations work had produced injury to the trees
of the plaintiffs. Such kind of harms can have produced through the material goods that was
thoughtful in nature that had made defendant to be held liable in this particular case.
TASK 3
3.1: Analysis of relevant factors that would lead to finds nuisance in the given case
(a): Case overview
According to the mentioned case study, it has been seen that John is the owner of a large
yard which he uses for the purpose of provide transportation services to schools and trips. One of
the person, Ben, owns the house close to the yard. But, Ben is annoyed by the regular noise and
diesel fumes coming out from the coaches. After waiting for 5 months, he decided to make
complains to John regarding this issues.
Factors those are associated with nuisance:
After making proper analysis of case scenario, it has been seen that Ben's case is directly
linked with the clearly case of private nuisance. Ben must have analysed the areas before taking
decision for taking house at close to the yard. In case of private nuisance, the damage is one of
the reliable but the law often presumes it.Accodring to legitimate bodies, Ben's don't have the
authority to file a case against the yard manager becuase yard was already placed. Hence, as per
the scenrio Ben is liable for his own problem. To determine accountability for an alleged
nuisance, a court will have used to examine basic three factors such as, the John fault, whether
there has been any considerable interference with the applicant’s interest and the rationality of
the john conduct (Rau, Reyes and Urzúa, 2013).
(b): Case overview
According to the mentioned case, it has been found that Smarts ltd in order to make iron
cast products uses the inherited land of Mary. Wanda has owned the land next to the factors for
30 years. Few of the exotic flowers which is planted by Wanda is getting damage by the fumes
and air debris of industries. But the company claims that the factors have been active for plenty
of years.
5

Factors that would lead to a finding of or not nuisance:
In this particular case, it is gain the clear case of private nuisances. It has been established
as a law to protect the interest of people in the civil suit. It has been seen that Wanda is living for
plenty of year adjacent to the industrial areas. The Smart company has been set up after knowing
all the facts, it is clearly shown that there is no any specific information is being provided
regarding the environmental damage only the resident house has got affected. It is basically
interference with the use or enjoyment of land. In case of amenity, nuisance is concerned, the
law need to compromise on the effective part of both the parties. This must be balance of
competing rights of neighbours and rules of give and take that has been applied in this particular
case. Because the damage to the flowers has been occurs after the established so Smart ltd need
to pay certain amount as compensation to Wanda.
CONCLUSION
From the above project report, it has been seen that tort of negligence action found in
various cases that leads to personal injury or financial damages to the parties. Use of both private
and public nuisance is also being taken into account in various cases. After making proper
analysis various decisions has been made in accordance with the defendant’s.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals:
Goldberg, J. C., 2012. Introduction: Pragmatism and Private Law. Harvard Law Review. 125(7).
pp.1640-1663.
Harris, P., 2015. An introduction to law. Cambridge University Press.
Koziol, H., 2012. Basic questions of tort law from a Germanic perspective (pp. 21-26). Vienna:
Jan Sramek Verlag.
Mees, H. L., Driessen, P. P. and Runhaar, H. A., 2012. Exploring the scope of public and private
responsibilities for climate adaptation. Journal of environmental policy & planning.
14(3). pp.305-330.
Owen, D., 2014. Products Liability Law, 3d (Hornbook Series). West Academic.
Posner, R. A., 2014. Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Rau, T., Reyes, L. and Urzúa, S. S., 2013. The long-term effects of early lead exposure: evidence
from a case of environmental negligence (No. w18915). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Shavell, S., 2013. A fundamental enforcement cost advantage of the negligence rule over
regulation. The Journal of Legal Studies. 42(2). pp.275-302.
Online
Private Nuisance. 2017. [Online]. Available through: < https://lawnn.com/public-nuisance-
private-nuisance/>.
7