Torts Outline.pdf Flashcards
Clone
Register
Torts Outline.pdf Flashcards
Torts Outline.pdf Flashcards
Study
Does rebuilding a house with a higher wall that causes a neighbor's chimney to smoke violate the Latin maxim or common law rule of having a right to light and air for 20 years?
No, it does not violate the Latin maxim or common law rule as it was within the property bounds of the owner.
In the case of Prah v Maretti involving solar panels blocking sunlight, was there a nuisance claim?
Yes, there was a nuisance claim. The plaintiff must endure some inconvenience without curtailment of the defendant's freedom of action.
In the case of TH Critelli Ltd v Lincoln Trusts and Savings Co, where construction on the defendant's roof caused damage to the plaintiff's roof, was there a nuisance claim?
Yes, there was a nuisance claim. The judge considered the intentions and knowability of causing damage to the plaintiff's roof before construction.
In the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf regarding TV transmission interference, was the interference considered a nuisance?
No, the court dismissed the case stating that something needed to be emanating from the defendant's land to constitute a nuisance.
In the case of Shuttleworth v Vancouver General Hospital, was there an action for nuisance based on infection fears?
No, there was no action for nuisance as nuisance law requires an actual or real danger, not just potential fears.
In the case of Laws v Florinplace involving a hard core porn shop, was an injunction granted based on nuisance claims?
Yes, an injunction was granted. Nuisance can occur when the defendant's use of property is offensive to ordinary people and residents.
In the case of Bamford v Turnley regarding brick making nuisance claims, what was the takeaway?
The principle of give and take, live and let live applies. The court considers common and ordinary uses of property to determine nuisance claims.
In the case of Miller v Jackson involving a cricket field next to a house, was there a nuisance claim?
Yes, there was a nuisance claim. The court assessed the balance between quiet enjoyment and community benefits of the cricket field.
What is the issue in the case of Miller v Jackson cricket?
Is there a nuisance claim? Is there a negligence claim?
What was Lord Denning's conclusion in Miller v Jackson cricket case regarding nuisance?
No nuisance. He viewed the cricket field as a huge public benefit to the community.
What was the conclusion in the case of Sturges v Bridgeman confectioner regarding nuisance?
A nuisance was created based on the circumstances.
What was the issue in the case of Tock v St Johns Metropolitan Board regarding a flooded basement?
Was the water a nuisance?
In Tock v St Johns Metropolitan Board case, what was the takeaway regarding statutory authority and nuisance claims?
If the statute authorizes the nuisance, there is no recovery unless there was negligence and no alternative way to do the work.
What was the issue in Antrim Truck Centre Ltd v Ontario truck stop case regarding interference with land use?
Was there a claim of nuisance due to permanent interference with the use of land?
What was the key takeaway from Coventry v Lawrence damages case regarding awarding damages or injunctions?
The historical Shelfer rule should consider public interest and allow for judicial discretion in awarding damages instead of injunctions.
What are the elements of negligence that the plaintiff must prove according to the structure mentioned?
Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Cause in Fact, Proximate Cause
What is the Shelfer Rule regarding injunctions and damages substitution?
If it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction, damages may be given in substitution for an injunction.
Why should courts be allowed to exercise discretion in granting injunctions?
Injunctions are a form of equitable remedy, and courts should be allowed to exercise discretion.
What factors should the Shelfer Rule consider according to the text?
The public interest, such as when a business may have to shut down and employees would lose their livelihood or when many people other than the plaintiff are affected by the nuisance.
What must the plaintiff prove in a negligence structure case?
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty by falling below the Standard of Care, Cause in Fact, Proximate Cause, and that the injury was of the right sort (injury to legal rights).
What is the Test Cooper used for in negligence cases?
To determine if the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant gives rise to a Duty of Care, considering reasonable foreseeability and proximity between the parties.
What are the two conceptions of reasonable foreseeability mentioned in the text?
Narrower conception (normal risks associated with the activity) and Broader conception (anything that becomes possible, no matter how unlikely).
What duty can initial negligent defendants owe to the ultimate consumer according to the text?
Initial negligent defendants can owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even if there was an opportunity for intermediate inspection.
In the case of Vaughan v Menlove, what was the issue and the takeaway regarding the standard of care for negligence?
Issue: Should M be held to the reasonable person standard of care or his own judgment? Takeaway: The standard of care for negligence is what a person of ordinary prudence would observe.
What was the issue in Buckley v Smith Transport regarding an insane delusion and negligence?
The issue was whether the insane delusion of the employee could excuse the negligence in causing the accident.
Can initial negligent defendants owe a duty of care to Ps even if there was an opportunity for intermediate inspection?
Yes, they can.
What was the issue in the case of Clay Vaughan v Menlove hayrick?
Should M be held to the reasonable person standard of care or his own judgement?
What is the takeaway from the case of Buckley v Smith Transport insanity?
You are held to the standard of ordinary prudence if you have the capacity to understand and discharge that duty.
In the case of Roberts v Ramsbottom stroke, did Ramsbottom fall below the standard of care of a reasonable driver?
Yes, he did.
What was the issue in the case of Masfield v Weetabix hypoglycemia?
Did the trucker fall below the standard of care due to hypoglycemia?