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

Law of Torts - Case Study Example The inherent ambiguity as to what conduct will constitute an interference with the use and enjoyment of land in order to justify an action in private nuisance has facilitated the piecemeal development of legal principles in this area2. This is further evidenced in context of environmental litigation3. Moreover, it has been widely extrapolated the law of nuisance is the most significant course of action in respect of environmental disputes4. However, commentators have criticised the multifarious limitations in private nuisance claims, which further render inherently complex cases difficult to be brought to court with any realistic prospect of success5. Indeed, the very nature of a claim being available only when environmental damage directly affects the use and enjoyment of another person's land intrinsically limits the parameters of nuisance6. Furthermore, the decision in the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf7 renders private nuisance claims dependant upon demonstration of a proprietary interest in the land, which has fuelled academic debate regarding the decision's 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 strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher9. Firstly it has been submitted that the arbitrary 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 liable for all damage that is a natural consequence of the escape12. In the Rylands case itself, the defendant was a mill owner who had employed an independent contractor to build a reservoir on his land. The contractor had been negligent in failing to block 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 contractor's 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 qualified 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 strict 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