Tort, Negligence and Nuisance Claims :: Tort Law

A number of aspects of liability rise from this case study and each one will be discussed. With regards to the headaches suffered by Karl, it is necessary to look at private nuisance. Negligence is disregarded as it is assumed from the details in the case study that the headaches suffered are not so serious as to cause personal injury, it is just described as ‘mere discomfort’. Such a claim under the law of nuisance requires three factors to be fulfilled. The first being a continuous interference. This is shown in De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914) 30 TLR 257. From the case study one can assume that it is a continuing interfering act and not a one off. Secondly, the interference must be unlawful or unreasonable. This is up to the claimant to prove. The rule for this is sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (So use your own property as not to injure your neighbour's). The locality in this instance reflects the unreasonableness of Jane’s actions. It occurred in a residential area and therefore such Gases were not to be expected. The duration of the act will also be taken into account. Because Jane is a young inventor it is assumed her work is an ongoing process and not a one off as explained above. The seriousness is also considered. In Walter v Selfe (1851), Knight-Bruce V C said â€Å"an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living, but according too the plain sober and simple notions among the English people.† This shows Jane’s actions would be deemed unreasonable, heightened by the fact that the incident occurred in a housing area, not an industrial estate. The sensitivity of the defendant, the utility of his conduct and a malicious aspect may be also discussed but this is not relevant in this case. Thus the second aspect of unlawful or unreasonable interference is established.