Law of Tort Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Law of Tort - Coursework ExampleNevertheless, Gearty reports, an action in snobbish botheration now covers a wide array of malfeasances such as smelly oil depots, noisy speedboats as well as dangerous inborn hazards and corporation even cover using aces premises for prostitution.3 It therefore follows that the manner in which an individual uses his/her own make for can interfere with others enjoyment of his/her land. Loyd LJ reflects the essence of these developments in the tort of hugger-mugger nuisance and Professor Winfields definition of private nuisance.4 In this regard, Lloyd LJ identified three unique(predicate) kinds of private nuisances. First a private nuisance exists when a neighbours land is encroached upon. Secondly, a private nuisance occurs with a neighbours land sustains physical damages directly and finally, private nuisance occurs when the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours land is interfered with.5 It would appear that the first definition of private nuisan ce is essentially the same as the third definition. ... To begin with, in order to successfully claim damages for private nuisance, the harm must be reasonably foreseeable.6 The requirement of reasonably foreseeable damages effectively replaces the previously available defence of natural use of the land as expressed in Rylands v Fletcher.7 Rylands established that in the event an individual makes unnatural use of his land and that unnatural use results in an escape that is apt(predicate) to cause harm, and no steps are taken to circumvent that escape, liability will exist for any damages that are natural consequences of that escape.8 Rylands therefore implies that the natural use of nonpareils land may not give rise to liability for private nuisance or nuisance generally. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties lash however, changes this defence by insisting that the resulting harm must merely be reasonably foreseeable. Brearly explains that the natural user defence was significant fo r preventing a floodgates of nuisance claims. However, the natural user defence was intrinsically flawed in that it could conceivably render ensuing harm from the natural use of ones land incompetent of recovery.9 Therefore the requirement that the harm itself is reasonably foreseeable falls more comfortably under the definition of private nuisance and ensures that interference in the private use of ones land should not only result in harm, but that harm should be reasonably foreseeable. This requirement is more likely to balance the rights of the neighbours use of his land and the defendants use of his own land. The unnatural and natural use of ones land does not always result in harm or interference in ones neighbours use of his/her land. Interference with ones enjoyment of the use