Harooni v rustins 2011 o damage to warehouse by fire

This preview shows page 105 - 108 out of 119 pages.

Harooni v Rustins (2011) o Damage to warehouse by fire, fire was started by third party Natural use = ordinary and usual use, even if artificial Non-natural use = excessive, abnormal or inappropriate to its location
o Facts A fire spread from the defendant’s factory through a 3rd party’s factory to the claimant’s factory, where it caused damage o Issue Could the defendant be held liable o Decision No o Reasoning No responsibility assumed, fire would have happened regardless of the paint being stored on property - Stannard v Gore (2012) 5) Can the claimant bring an action under the rule in R v F? - As with private nuisance, claimant has to have a proprietary interest in order to bring a claim under R v F o Depends on propriety interest if own the land, can bring claim - Cambridge Water - Affirmed in Transco : rule in R v F is a ‘remedy for damage to land or interests in land.’ per Lord Hoffman 6) Defenses - '...the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default..' - Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 applies - '..or the act of God..'/ acts of a stranger over whom defendant had no control/ vis major - unforeseeable act Act of God = An act 'which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility.' - Tenant v Earl of Glasgow (1864) - Act of a stranger - Show: escape caused by stranger whose act was unforeseeable and over whom defendant had no reasonable control - Rickards v Lothian (1913) - Consent o Action will fail if claimant has expressly or impliedly consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing - Statutory authority o See nuisance Past exam essay questions 2011: - ‘The concept of ‘unreasonable user’ lies at the heart of the action of private nuisance. It is therefore unfortunate that this concept lacks clarity. However, a lack of clarity is inevitable as what constitutes an unreasonable use of land must change with the times.’ Discuss. 2013: - ‘Establishing an actionable nuisance is an entirely straightforward matter of showing that the defendant has engaged in an unreasonable use of their land. Moreover, it is no more difficult to obtain a remedy where the defendant is engaged in a large-scale undertaking with a social benefit, than it is where the defendant is the residential occupier next door.’
Discuss. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY - if you are working and commit a civil wrong you could be sued, and your employer could be sued even though they have done nothing wrong o employers owe personal duty of care to employee vicarious liability, recently changed by judgements of Cox and Mahamoud (changed the law) - SARAH act and compensation act will apply when considering cases An employer’s liability in tort typically arises in one of three ways: (i) An employer owes a non-delegable (nothing you can do to get rid of it) common law duty of care to their employees and therefore may be personally liable for harm caused to their employees; (ii) An employer may also be liable in the tort of breach of statutory duty (separate tort),

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture