Preview

Nuisences

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
3101 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Nuisences
Defination Of Nuisances * “Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection, with it.” Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort. * it involves interference with land, the claimant, as you will see, has to have an interest in land. * the aim of private nuisance is to protect interests in land, damages for personal injury are not recoverable under this tort.

Who can sue? * It has traditionally protected interest in land. * Only a person who has some proprietary interest I land. Can maintain an action. It is : i) A landowner ii) An occupier ( whether as tenant, lessee or a person in actual possessions )

For example in cases of Foster -v- Warblington Urban District Council; CA 1906 * A nuisance was caused by the discharge of sewage by the defendant council into oyster beds. The plaintiff was an oyster merchant who had for many years been in occupation of the oyster beds which had been artificially constructed on the foreshore, which belonged to the lord of the manor. The plaintiff excluded everybody from the oyster beds, and nobody interfered with his occupation of the oyster beds or his removal and sale of oysters from them.

* Held: He could sue the defendant Council in nuisance, notwithstanding that he could not prove his title. Stirling LJ: ‘I think, therefore, that, as against a private individual, the plaintiff would have a right of action, and I do not think that this case can be governed by the decision in the case of Corporation of Truro v. Rowe. There the contest arose between the owners of the foreshore and a person who claimed simply to be availing himself of a public right of fishing. Here the contest arises, in my view, between the person who is in occupation of a portion of the foreshore and a wrongdoer. Whether the plaintiff would be able to resist the claims of the owner of the foreshore, whoever he may be, or the owner of a several fishery, if such

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The COE was not overstepping in its requirement of a permit because of its authority under the CWA. The wetland’s inclusion under the jurisdiction of the CWA was protected because of its adjacency to a navigable body of water, and the broad definition of “navigable” under the CWA. The Court ruled that the injunction and permit requirement did not constitute a taking, because of the respondent’s lack of compliance to apply for one. Also, the denial of a permit would not reduce the economic viability of RBH’s 80 acres by 100%. The court relied on scientific deference, because if this wetland could have a significant effect on the adjacent body of navigable water explicitly protected by the CWA, then it is subject to CWA jurisdiction.…

    • 665 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    v. Fernandez - A three year old's body was found in a auger on Spur feeding company's property, when he and two other minors where roaming on the company's property. The father of the three year old filed a wrongful death lawsuit under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The courts held it was not necessary for a child to have been killed or maimed before there was a notice that children may have been attracted to the machinery because the unloading operation was near a public highway, unfenced and wholly unprotected from intrusion, and plainly visible at a distance so as to have been alluring to children traveling along the road. This case is best used to argue the Malones case that Ms. Herrera did not take reasonable care to protect trespassing children from harming themselves on her property which was near a public highway and there was no fence surrounding the condition where Maria Malone received her…

    • 668 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    No duty to trespassers except not to willfully cause the injury (Mail v. Smith Lumber Co., 287 P. 2d 877 (Wash. 1955)).…

    • 404 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    (Tenn.Ct.App., 2008). In this case the following facts were argued: The dispute arose over a strip of land located on the northern side of Underwood Repair Service's property Lot 1 and the southern side of the Deans' property Lot 2. Underwood Repair Service asserted that it owned the disputed strip of land in fee simple, or, in the alternative, through adverse possession. The Deans filed a motion to dismiss both claims, and the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the adverse possession claim, finding…

    • 1880 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    badm 300 exam2 review

    • 2254 Words
    • 10 Pages

    b. Exclusive  You can’t have possession at the same time with owners ex) drive way…

    • 2254 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    According to our textbook, Business Law Text and Cases, the rights that accompany a fee simple absolute include the right to use the land for whatever purpose the owner see fit in addition to a person who uses his or her property in a manner that unreasonably interferes with other’s right to use or enjoy their own property can be liable for the tort of nuisance. Pursuant to the equitable maxim that `He who comes into equity must come with clean hands,' the so-called `clean hands' doctrine, the complainant seeking equitable relief must not himself have been guilty of any inequitable or wrongful conduct with respect to the transaction or subject matter sued on (Richards v. Musselman, 1980). A court of equity will not relieve against conditions brought about by the improper conduct of the party seeking relief (Wilson v. Wall, 1901). There are limits to an owner’s use of property to the extent they cannot interfere unreasonably with another’s right to use or enjoy their property. The courts should rule in favor of the Cline’s since they would have never built the fence had Berg left them alone or complied with their request to have him remove the lights and surveillance cameras. Thus per the clean hands doctrine, Berg must not have been guilty of any inequitable or wrongful conduct for the courts to rule in his favor. In the actual case on which this problem is based, the Supreme Court of Virginia concluded the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to apply the "clean hands" doctrine and denied the injunctive relief requested by Berg and reversed the judgment of the circuit court and enter final judgment here in favor of the Clines (Cline v Berg,…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Under Vermont Common Law does Mr. John Ellis’ recently created chicken coop in a residential neighborhood constitutes a private nuisance when Mr. Ellis’ rooster and the hens generate odors and noises that could be considered unreasonable and substantial interferences with Ms. Alicia Carmody’s enjoyment of her yard?…

    • 1429 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Cited: Dinonysius RICHARDSON, Albert E. Flournoy, Thaddeus Dias, Eugene Fleming, Jr., and Edward Hunt, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, 572 F.2d 89 (United States Court of Appeals, third Circuit February 17, 1978).…

    • 1073 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Australian Property Law

    • 63351 Words
    • 254 Pages

    Table of Contents d 5 Torrens Title Lan Introduction 5 Principle of Indefeasibility 5 Key Provisions (RP Act) 5 Deferred v immediate indefeasibility 6 Frazer v Walker 1967 6 Breskvar v Wall (1971) 7 What will attract indefeasibility? 8 Leases: 9 Mercantile Credits Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1976) 9 Karacominakis v Big Country Developments (2000) 11 Mortgages: 11 Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Ltd (2007) 11 Volunteers 12 Bogdanovic v Koteff (1988) 12 Rasmussen v Rasmussen [1995] 13 Exceptions to Indefeasibility 14 Fraud Exception: 15 Loke Yew v Port Swettenham Rubber Co Ltd [1913] 15 Assets Co Ltd v Mere Roihi [1905] 16 Schultz v Corwill Properties (1969) 16 Russo v Bendigo Bank Ltd (1993) 17 The In Personam Exception 18 Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 18 Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance Co Ltd v Gosper (1991) 20 Vassos v State Bank of South Australia (1993) 20 Special equity cases: 21 Personal equity and breach of trust: 22 Personal Equities and Mistake 23 OTHER EXCEPTIONS; OVERRIDING STATUTES 23 The Register, equitable interests and caveats 26 The Register 26 Bursill Enterprises Pty Ltd v Berger Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd 26 White v Betalli [2007] NSWCA 243 27 Equitable interests and unregistered instruments 27 Barry v Heider (1914) 19…

    • 63351 Words
    • 254 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Legal Class Study Guide

    • 2465 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Wrongful – the possessor must not have the owners permission to be on the land. For example under a lease.…

    • 2465 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    • carried on by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Negligence Case Study

    • 1038 Words
    • 5 Pages

    According to Commercial Escrow Company v. Rockport Rebel, negligence is a “conduct, which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others”. And in this case, Mechanics National Bank failed to remove the lien on Ms. Warren’s Lagoon Beach property, which means it, fell beneath the standard for civic protection recognized by law.…

    • 1038 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Something Random

    • 961 Words
    • 4 Pages

    * Homestead Act: permitted any citizen to claim 160 acres of public land for a small fee after living on it for 5 years…

    • 961 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Eminent Domain

    • 1670 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The only role and purpose of the acquired land is for it to be exclusively utilized for public uses, it cannot be utilized for means of producing tax revenues, additional jobs, and/or economic development benefits, giving an increased monetary advantage to the public agency. Kitchens (2014) explained that given the potential to expand and abuse eminent domain, it is of extreme importance to understand the refusing decision of the private owner, in instance waiting for the role of courts, and the outcomes of individuals taken to court. If a private owner had over a thousand dollars in holdouts then such proprietor was more likely to do for every thousand dollars debt. In other words, when someone has a considerable amount of the debt, the owner would preferably go to court and let the judge decide as to how much he/she is entitled to for the value of the owned land, instead of simply accepting the compensation that is being offered. Another fact in holding the selling of the property is related as to how many years the property owner has lived on the requiring land. The use of eminent domain for development and growth is significantly linked to controversies and complicated debates on economic development. One case where the taking of someone’s land turned into an issue of economic development was…

    • 1670 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Better Essays

    Tort Paper on Nuisance

    • 3691 Words
    • 15 Pages

    Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury…

    • 3691 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Better Essays