nuisance escape of dangerous things

• elements for nuisance

  unlawful + indirect interference
• hunter v Canary Wharf

  loss of recreational facility is not a nuisance
• sedleigh denfeild v o'callahan

  once the occupier is aware of the danger/issue they will be liable for nuisance
• Leakey v national trust 


  landowner may be liable for a nuisance when they are aware of a slippage that might happen.
• anthony v the coal auth. 


  they may be liable when a nuisance arises from natural causes - which they fail to deal with.
• indirect interference

  loss of amenity - the smell from animal farm, kids playground material damage - vibrations from industrial machinery etc
• thompson- schwab v costaki

  court of appeal decided it was a nuisance to run a brothel in a respectable residential area.
• factors of reasonableness

  locality, duration of interference, sensitivity of claimant, malice, social benefit.
• locality 


  sturges v bridgeman
• duration

  crown river cruises v kimbolton fireworks
• sensitivity of claiment

  robinson v killvert
• sensitivity of claiment 


  natwork rail infast. v morris - abnormally sensitive
• malice

  christie v davey - acted maliciously - nuisance
• social benefit

  miller v jackson - not liable for nuisance
• defences for nuisance 


  prescription, moving to the nuisance, statutory authority
• prescription

  sturges v Bridgman
• statutory authority

  allen v gulf oil refining - given stat auth to buy land - not a nuisance
• statutory duty 


  wheeler v Saunders - living near a farm - expect smell
• rylands v fletcher rules

  bringing onto the land/accumulation, of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes, amounts to a non-natural use of land, which escapes causing foreseeable damage to adjoining property.
• giles v walker


  no liability - naturally present on land
• wagon mound no1


  damage must not be remote
• rickards v lothian 


  non-natural use of land
• Cambridge water v eastern countries leather

  damage has to be reasonably forseeable
• reed v lyons


  material has to escape from one property to another - no liability
• defences 


  consent, act of a stranger, act of god, statutory auth., contributory negligence
• consent 


  knowledge of risk, exercise free choice, voluntary acceptance of risk
• acts of a stranger


  Perry v Kendricks Transport - not liable
• act of god


  nichols v marsland - not liable
• contributory negligence 


  sayers v Harlow Urban District Council - tried to escape
• O'connell v jackson 


  damages reduced by 15% as the rider was not wearing a helmet
• froom v butcher


  contrib neg - damages reduced by 20%
• only remedy for Ryland and fletcher is

  damages