Law of Torts Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Law of Torts - Case Study ExampleThe inherent equivocalness as to what conduct will constitute an interference with the procedure and enjoyment of land in give to justify an action in private abhorrence has facilitated the piecemeal development of legal principles in this area2. This is get along evidenced in context of environmental litigation3. Moreover, it has been widely extrapolated the law of nuisance is the most significant persist of action in respect of environmental disputes4.However, commentators have criticised the multifarious limitations in private nuisance claims, which make headway render inherently complex cases difficult to be brought to court with any realistic prospect of success5. Indeed, the real nature of a claim being available except when environmental damage directly affects the use and enjoyment of another persons land intrinsically limits the parameters of nuisance6.Furthermore, the finale in the case of Hunter v pilferer Wharf7 renders private n uisance claims dependant upon demonstration of a proprietary interest in the land, which has fuelled academic conceive regarding the decisions implications for private nuisance claims8. The focus of this analysis is to evaluate the implications of the decision in the Hunter case, particularly in context of the development and application of the unappeasable liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher9.Firstly it has been submitted that the controlling nature of judicial developments in private nuisance claims would alternatively be better addressed by the strict liability rule as established in Rylands v Fletcher10. The Rylands rule relates to the situation where a non-natural land user keeping something on their land, which is likely to escape, and as such, is stated to be kept at their own peril11. If the thing does escape, the rule affirms that the individual will be apt for all damage that is a natural consequence of the escape12. In the Rylands case itself, the defendant was a mil l owner who had employed an free-lance contractor to build a reservoir on his land. The contractor had been negligent in failing to law of closure a disused mine shaft that he had come across on the site. As a result, when the reservoir was filled, water escaped causing damage. As the contractor was independent the landowner was not liable for negligence or vicariously liable for the contractors conduct13.In delivering the judgement for the claimant, Blackburn J asserted the rule only applied to a thing which was not naturally there14. Furthermore, Lord Cairns presiding in the House of Lords additionally dependent the applicability of the Rylands rule to where the defendant had actually brought the thing onto his land15. The rule was further developed in the decision in Reads v Lyons16 by determining that one cannot claim for personal injuries in private nuisance but only for the discomfort caused to the use of the land itself17. The essence of the rule is that it is a form of st rict liability for the escape of things likely to cause damage and which have been brought onto land18.On the one hand the strict liability rule in Rylands leans towards legal certainty in this complex area of law by