Tort Law II Problem Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Nairobi *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PHYSIOLOGI
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by nickhande
1
Tort Law II Problem Questions
Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
2
Tort Law II Problem Questions
Question One
The offenders present in the case are rejecting liability in negligence on the fact that the
firm was not in breach of their responsibility and duty to provide care. in order to prosecute
Friern Hospital management committee in negligence for failing to provide appropriate care
standards to Bolam. In the case, Bolam will have to proof that: (1) Friern Hospital management
committee owed Bolam medical coverage and duty to care; (2) Moreover, Friern Hospital
management committee did not breach the responsibility of care because the Bolam test confirms
that if health practitioners reach responsible body standards in a preferred medical approach, they
are not negligent; and (3) Friern Hospital management committee’s negligence resulted high
medical options opposed to relaxant drug use. The defendants denied liability in negligence on
facts that they did not breach the duty of care. regardless of owing Bolam duty of care in
attempts of addressing various physical injuries. When assessing whether the noticeable claims
and risks by the defendants in the case were reasonable, the court focuses for fictional facts seen
by a man of the Clapham omnibus by taking into consideration factors considered by normal
reasonable behavior, given the foreseeable injury risk.
On (1) the defense of Bolam v. Friern Hospital management committee supports the
suggestion that defense owed Bolam the duty to care. In that argument there is no actual
difference between the case in question and the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital management
committee. On (2), Friern Hospital management committee was seen to breach the responsibility
of care because they had the mandate of testing health conditions. On (3), Bolam v. Friern
Hospital management committee’s breach in negligence of care seen by the statement that if
3
doctors reach responsible body standards in a preferred medical condition, they are not eligible.
In mid-2015, the Bolam test was declared null and void by the Supreme Court following
decisions of Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board. In tort cases, Bolam could sue Friern
Hospital management committee in negligence for compensation for the exposure patients to
potential harm seen by doctors reach responsible body standards in a preferred medical
condition, they are not eligible. The defense of Bolam v. Friern Hospital management committee
illustrated that Friern Hospital management committee owed Bolam duty to care.
Question Four
The Tort of Nuisance
At the common law, the term private nuisance exists as an omission that results in
unprecedented interference to an individual’s enjoyment of their land: Baxter v. Camden LBC
.
The plaintiffs in the case need to first proof that they had an attention with the land immediately
after the nuisance occurred. In current settings, general annoyance fails to be represented by the
tort on private nuisance: Lawrence v. Fen Tigers Ltd.
As a fact, all the potential claimants in the
case, except Elmer were tenants of the land in question, and thus each claimant had a
locus
standi
to present the case for hearing. On the other hand, most of the definitions highlight that
the defendant is liable on his own/ rented land which leads in such actions annoying his
neighbors. Similarly, it is only the claimant who requires to have an interest in the land unlike the
defendant, therefore, the nuisance can occur anywhere in the streets.
In order to present an action for nuisance, the claimants need to show an interest in the
property in question. Similarly, the action is presented for interference to the land in question
unlike for personal inconveniencies. Regardless of nuisance being cause by neighboring children
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
making noise to the neighboring tenants or landowners: Malone v. Laskey
, a legal action can be
presented to everybody who triggers the unlawful interference, even if it is done in a field. In
essence, all the parties presenting the interference in the entire case study, therefore, are likely to
be viable suspects.
On the other hand, the claim that the caused interference is categorized as chorionic is
likely to rule it unreasonable as well as the claims that it results in damaging/ affecting
neighboring tenants. Alison might claim that Donald, who is an elderly man, is highly sensitive
because the noise does not result in immediate healthcare hazards but his real concern is that he
is unable to indulge in his activities. If a plaintiff is troubled by something which cannot result in
harming/ interfering with an individual’s normal enjoyment, then the court may consider the
interference to be reasonable: Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd
. In the case in question, it is possible
that any tenant would object to the claims of noise pollution brought about by Alison’s children
onto their land.
Various case-laws present an alternative approach to the issue in question, at least in
regards to damages. In Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd
, the court ruled that actions in private
nuisance will only lie in favor of an individual who has a right to the land in question. In such
instances, such individuals only have a chance of suing if he/she has the right to exclusively own
the land in question. The plaintiff can either proof a possession as a tenant or a freeholder or
present an exclusive possession by having a valid license. On that claims, Alison will have to
argue that it was not reasonably possible that Donald wanted to have a nap but only got
distracted from the noise of Alison’s children. As mentioned from the case extract, it would be
completely difficult for Alison to establish, as it is possible that Donald wanted to take a nap at
the time of the interferences.
5
Alison
Alison’s best defense in the case of private nuisance, might be to claim the entitlement of
‘
caveat lessee’
under the judgment in Khorasandjian v. Bush
. By the aforementioned rule, a
tenant needs to consider a property as found. The question presented might be as to whether
Donald could have reasonably found about the possible playing noises from Alison’s children
before moving into the neighborhood. If Donald was, or should have been, conscious of children
in the neighborhood playing noisily, he has no facts of complaining in this manner. Alison was
the legal owner of the property and could not stand trial because she was not be liable for
nuisance presented by the tenant of a property to bread chicken in the cottage environment.
Donald
No case for Donald when he plays music and he needed be case law for each action done.
Moreover, it is distinctly an unreasonable interference to play loud music late at night only to
disturb sleeping neighbors. Donald confirms that his advancing age made him sensitive to noise
generated from Alison’s children. She declined to tell her children to reduce the noise while
playing and this gave Donald a motive to retaliate. He retaliated by turning up the volume of his
radio late at night in a bid to disrupt Alison’s sleep. Similarly, Donald could be sued for liability
in the tort of private nuisance provided Alison proofs possession of her semi-detached house.
Donald’s retaliation is seen to be intentional as an attempt of getting back at Alison by playing
his radio loudly late at night to distract her sleep. The approach does not only apply to Alison, the
interference also affected other neighbors who are eligible for suing Donald for private of
nuisance by distracting their sleep.
6
Fiona
Fiona had no case law due to a number of factors brought about by noise contamination.
Alison owns another property around Butterfield Cottage attached to a garden and leased it to
Elmer who keeps chickens as an income source. A week ago, the property was leased the cottage
to Fiona frequently complains of a bad smell that prevented her ability of enjoying the scenery of
the garden because of the awful chicken smell. Similarly, Alison took the correct approach in
trying to reach a solution between claims raised by Fiona because of Elmer’s activity. Alison
reasoned and responded to the presented claims by stating that: “That is how things are done in
the countryside. You were required to know that the very moment you took the lease.” As a
cottage tenant, Fiona was right to sue Alison for poor property management that resulted in
breach of private of nuisance seen by the awful smell of chicken that prevented Fiona from
enjoying the beautiful scenery of the garden.
In the case, Alison is required to proof the legal ownership of Butterflied Cottages who
leased it to interested parties. Elmer’s is immune of her activity of rearing chickens regardless of
the awful smell that results after the process. However, Fiona wanted to enjoy the beautiful
nature scenes but was unable to because of the bad smell. As a recent tenant, Fiona was eligible
to report the situation in a bid of reaching a meaningful conclusion. Alison was not liable for
private of nuisance if only she can proof that she was not the creator of the nuisance.
Additionally, if she could proof that Fiona was aware of the smelling condition the very moment
she choose to be a cottage tenant thus being aware of the smell upon arrival.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
a)
Alison would not be liable for nuisance presented by the tenant of a property only if she
can be said to have approved the private nuisance breach by renting the property in
question and directly participated in the directive of the nuisance.
b)
It is not solid that Alison (owner of Butterfield Cottages) was aware of the private
nuisance breach but to no legal measures to prevent the occurrence.
c)
In order to succeed on claims of authorization by renting, a plaintiff is required by law to
show a high profitability degree that the rented property in question resulted in the
nuisance.
On that claim, the allegations against Alison would eventually fail. In essence, it is not at all
possible that subletting Butterfield Cottages to Elma would lead to the generation of chicken
smell that affected Fiona’s stay. Alison only agreed to renting the property because it was
originally to be used as a cottage for living. In the court, Elma would only be liable to the bad
smell presented by chicken rearing in the cottages only if the nuisance was conducted by Elma
was Alison’s licensee. From the mentioned claim, the limitation of landlord liability was drafted
in Hussain v. Lancaster
and Lippiatt v. South Gloucestershire Council
.
From the case extract, it seemed to be the situation here, regardless of Elma resolving to
rearing chicken within the cottage environments, Alison can argue in the court that Elma went
against their renting permission by simply deciding on rearing chicken without her approval.
However, Elma played an essential role by trying to clean the area to reduce the awful smell but
the it was not successful.
Elma could be sued for nuisance seen by the three potential
defendant’s factors that results to the nuisance case if the plaintiff proofs the following claims:
8
a)
The tenant of the land from which the nuisance began
b)
The inventor of the nuisance
c)
The owner of the inventor of the nuisance
When proofing the tenant of the land form which as nuisance start in potential tort law
problems, a tenant can only be liable of nuisance whether being involved in its creation if they
fail to take legal responsible approaches to abate possible negative outcomes. The unusual thing
is that a plaintiff can sue an individual who generated the nuisance for damages, despite no
longer owning the land through which the noticed nuisance occurred. Therefore, Elma’s unusual
cottage use and opting to chicken breading within the cottage would be considered as an
approach that is interpreted as a nuisance because it resulted in undue smell and condition that
prevented Fiona’s stay at the cottage.