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

Go tell it on the mountain by James Baldwin Essay - 1

Go tell it on the mountain by James Baldwin - Essay Example In the story, a lot of trouble mars marriage because what connects the couple is not the connection of love but the pretence of commitment dominated by the love of money, wealth, and status. The Father wants to be associated with the fame and the respect of the future wife’s family. This greed drives this man which later turns to be sore when they finally reach the marriage life. The narrator says, â€Å"My father is only mindful of the wealth and the fame that he stands to benefit ultimately if he marries my mother.† The narrator also says that the father is concerned on the money-generating mission above any other things. The narrator says â€Å"my father only brags to my mother of the depth of his pocket and how he has money. He has to love to share with my mother.† The father is material driven. He seems not to care about anything and he has confidence in his money. He loves the taste of power and â€Å"he delights when he condemns people. He seeks to claim sovereignty over people: this is the arrogance of life that seems to content him.† The pain and confusion comes when it is evidently notable that the mother also has a different concept and weird perspective of a happy marriage. She is totally misled of what really makes a happy family relationship. The mother is dominated with ego and pride. She sees herself as the most intelligent creature on earth. This makes her to be coined in her own cocoon without being open with her fiancà ©. In any relationship where people have a lot to hide than share, trouble always shoots in. suspicion is always evident and mistrust always sets in between the couples. This creates constant disharmony and insecurity which results to quarrels and, fights and ultimately divorce. The mother is also driven by the illusions, which are farfetched from the reality. She lives with the illusions in the movie on how love affairs should be done. She has wrong concepts