The law has always protected the rights of persons who suffer any type of injury by the act

or omission of another. In relation to this, Bridge development Ltd’s potential liability in relation to any potential nuisance actions will be discussed in the light of the expansion they did with Ashenhurst Hall to increase the number of visitors by converting it into a theme park. One of the main concerns include the traffic causing considerable inconvenience to the residents of Ashenhurst village wherein a milk tanker had to pour a couple of litres of milk down the drain. Also, the noise emanating from the theme park, such as piercing screams from theme park rides, is affecting neighboring homes and the animals residing in a nearby wildlife sanctuary. In addition to this, waste from the theme park has not been collected properly which is affecting another farmer’s land. Lastly, a theme park ride has caused damage to a sewer pipe owned by a local water company. With these concerns in mind, it is important to define what constitutes tort, nuisance and whether or not these acts are within the realm of the definition of tort or nuisance. In view of this, case analysis would also be done to further shed light on the various rulings the court has made regarding the issues at hand. In this manner, the potential liability of Bridge Development Ltd would be easier to abate.

Definition of Tort
Torts are a group of civil wrongs that in some way bring injury to persons or property and for which the law provides a remedy in the form of an award of a sum of money. The term civil wrong refers to the fact that a suit based on tort is not prosecuted by the state in a criminal proceeding but rather is initiated by a private party acting as the plaintiff.1

Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance
Nuisance is a common law tort. There are two types: public nuisance and private nuisance. To the present day, causing a public nuisance has been treated both as a crime and a

Academic American Encyclopedia, s.v. ”tort.”

Section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 establishes nine categories of statutory nuisance (the state of premises. 4 Essays-r-Us. is an act that interferes with your use and enjoyment of your own land. 5 Office of Public Sector Information. Statutes related to Nuisance The statute which specifically addresses the problem on nuisance is embodied in the Environmental Protection Act of 19905.parliament. on the other hand. smoke emissions. ”nuisance. Hunter and Others v. the ingredients of each being the same. < opsi. effluvia from industrial trade or business premises. A public nuisance is an act or a failure to act that inconveniences or harms the public at large. noise from vehicles or equipment in 2 3 Family Legal Guide. Hunter and Others v. Public nuisance may be likened to a statutory nuisance which is a criminal offence and is the statute version of the common law tort of nuisance. Reader’s Digest. You can settle a private nuisance problem by a civil lawsuit. A private nuisance. punishable by fine or imprisonment. < publications. retrieved 13 November 2006.asp?essay=7770>.gov. animals. retrieved 13 November 2006. Canary Wharf Ltd. and (3) nuisance by interference with a neighbour's quiet enjoyment of his land.v. (2) nuisance by direct physical injury to a neighbour's land. fumes or gases from dwellings. Environmental Protection Act 1990. retrieved 13 November 2006. It is a criminal offense.htm>. In De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914) 30 TLR 2574. foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite of the recovery of damages in private and also in public nuisance. London Docklands Corporation.2 In Lord Lloyd in Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] 2 All ER 426 3. directing the wrongdoer to pay for the damage and to discontinue the nuisance. noise from premises.” United Kingdom <essays-r-us. They are (1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour's land. Negotiation Plan. the court stated that private nuisances are of three kinds. Moreover.htm>. noisy pile driving at night during temporary building works was held to be a private nuisance. accumulations or deposits.tort.

cause personal injuries. To this end the undertaker must provide an appropriate system of sewers and to cleanse and maintain those sewers as to ensure that that area is and continues to be effectually drained.v. One must give proper notice to the person responsible for the nuisance before trying to stop it. A defendant can be ordered not to continue an existing nuisance or not to proceed with a threatened one. Water Industry Act 1991. ”nuisance.6 Injunctions.htm>. ordering that they be stopped. Summary abatement. Fletcher (1868) 6 Office of Public Sector Information. Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 makes it an offence to pollute controlled waters and Section 94 sets out the principal general duty of every sewerage undertaker: to ensure its area is properly drained. Injunctions are drastic remedies granted when the threat or harm is serious and there is likelihood that it will reoccur if not stopped. 7 Family Legal Guide. Rylands v. This is mainly due to the public/private nuisance divide and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. it is appropriate to award money damages in a private nuisance case to compensate the plaintiff for the harm he has suffered – whether or not an injunction is issued. is stopping a nuisance without resorting to legal action. Injunctions may give a defendant a choice.” . Damages. Section 33 controls the dumping of waste. Reader’s Digest. In some cases. retrieved 13 November 2006. limited or restrained. the boundaries of tort are blurring. Anyone who tries to abate a nuisance summarily must not unnecessarily damage property. on the other land. Abatements and Criminal Penalties Courts may issue injunctions against nuisances. < opsi.a street and other matters declared by other Acts to be statutory nuisances).7 Analysis At present. Another relevant statute is the Water Industry Act 1991. or disturb peace.

the House of Lords has held that a water supply piped by a local authority to a block of flats on their land was a normal use of land with the consequence that when water escaped from the supply.parliament. in the sense that it materially affected their well being 8 9 Wikipedia. however.htm>. Denning LJ on p 191. retrieved 13 November 2006."10 Also. recent cases like Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61. United Kingdom Parliament.8 However. <en. Rimmington. retrieved 13 November 2006. Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan. . It established a rule related to. it is clear that some of the company’s conduct may constitute as tort but the more serious ones that affect the public may be considered as statutory nuisances which is a criminal offence and is the statute version of the common law tort of nuisance. but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at>. Fletcher case. which imposes liability without the need to prove negligence. The leading modern authority on public nuisance is Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169.LR 3 HL 330. retrieved 13 November 2006. <publications.parliament._Fletcher. where it is said: "To be within the spirit of this Act a nuisance. a landmark English legal case. to be considered a statutory nuisance. < publications. In the Transco case. "that a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it. to be a statutory nuisance. 10 United Kingdom Parliament. according to the case of Wyvernhoe Port v. Colchester Borough Council [l985] In the case of Bridge Development Ltd. the tort of nuisance. did not apply.htm>. Rylands_v. the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 300. Regina v. has to be one interfering materially with the personal comfort of the residents. in which the Court of the Exchequer Chamber first applied the doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities. has not been that strict as in the Rylands v. though arguably distinct from.

although it might not be prejudicial to health." With these definitions in mind. the court may find it proper to abate such nuisance. Without malicious intent from Bridge Development Ltd.500 litres of milk down the drain. They also take into consideration the fact that the said traffic congestion may be a sign that the place also provides employment and tax revenue. that are statutory nuisances. Farmer Green cannot sue for damages. < richardbuxton. The acts complained of cannot. The noise must be both excessive and unreasonable. . First among these issues is the traffic congestion which caused Farmer Green to pour 1. cannot be treated as a statutory nuisance. be treated as a whole. The different concerns will be discussed one by one since there are different complainants for a specific issue. retrieved 13 November 2006. occur. This issue. This is important as illustrated in the case of Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 wherein the court has stressed the principles of reasonable user and reasonable foreseeability: It was the absence of reasonable foreseeability of harm of the relevant type that excluded liability in that case. it is now proper to address the potential liability of Bridge Development Ltd in relation to any potential nuisance actions. Oxford University Press" further elaborated that "Whereas to the lay person anything that annoys him is a>. The traffic congestion was felt during the opening day wherein all the public roads were blocked with traffic causing inconvenience to the residents of Ashenhurst village. The court has yet to abate a disturbance based solely on traffic congestion. It is ruled in the case of Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880. the legal test for noise/nuisance is"11 "Statutory Nuisance Law and Practice. if other violations. with knowledge or presumed knowledge of its existence (in that case a defective grating giving 11 Colchester Borough Council. however. Wyvernhoe Port v. However. the House of Lords held that an occupier of land "continues" a nuisance if.

and so worked as to render sleep at night almost impossible. In a very similar case. The fact that Ashenhurst hall has been open for public viewing since the early 1960s will not excuse it for being potentially liable for the noise that the new development has created. retrieved 13 November %20Lecture. . he fails to take reasonable means to bring it to an end when he has reasonable time to do so.htm>. Roper v Tussauds. in The fact that a locality is a noisy one. Private Nuisance. have been complaining about since they are unable to sleep because of the high level of noise. the said noise has been causing distress to the animals residing at the nearby wildlife sanctuary owned by the court has ruled that noise from a nearby theme park is indeed a nuisance and has declared that a statutory noise nuisance existed and ordered such theme park to abate the nuisance. retrieved 13 November 2006. although previously to its introduction my house was a reasonably comfortable abode. or of an industrial character. As the above words of Cozens-Hardy LJ 12 Law Teacher.13 It is clear then that noise does not only qualify as a tort but is indeed a statutory nuisance. and it would be no answer to say that the steam-hammer is of the most approved pattern and is reasonably worked.php?table=transcripts&id=118&flag=name>.12 The most important concern is the noise that Ms. Cozens-Hardy LJ said: "It does not follow that because I live. Goode. constitute a defense to nuisance. Tussauds Theme Parks Ltd(2005). does not. Bourne. Moreover. In Rushmer v Polsue and Alfieri Ltd[1906].rise to flood damage). along with the village say in the manufacturing part of Sheffield I cannot complain if a steam-hammer is introduced next door. < lawteacher. having regard to the local standard. Roper < richardbuxton. 13 RichardBuxton." Noise produced by industrial and manufacturing processes or by using equipment associated with such activities is a complicated area of control. may constitute statutory nuisance. carries. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offense to infuriate or terrify any animal. Although there has been no case yet on theme parks causing distress to animals. keeping.14 Also. The "neighbour principle" which states that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. produces. The most palpable nuisance among the acts of Bridge Development Ltd is its problematic waste disposal. The "Duty of Care" was introduced under the Environmental Protection Act. This is a clear violation of the general tort law which is effectively encapsulated in the concept of "duty of care" owed by one individual to another. the Fireworks Act 2003 orders the Secretary of State for securing that there is no risk that the use of fireworks will have the following consequence .gov. .Goode. Any person or organization may initiate proceedings under this Act. keeps. to prevent the escape of waste and to ensure 14 Scottish Executive. The injury to the animals.death of animals or injury or distress to animals. < scotland. Rushmer v Polsue and Alfieri Ltd. It is clear then that the law protects even the animals and to avoid any nuisance that may cause distress to them. This duty was set out in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson(1932).uk/Publications/2005/10/2192231/22366>. The courts alone must decide whether an offence has been committed. The problem with the disposal was further aggravated by the fracture which caused the overloading and resulted in litter and rotting food overflowing and polluting farmer Green’s land. treats or disposes of waste is subject to a duty of care whereby they must take all reasonable and applicable measures: to prevent another person illegally treating. retrieved 13 November 2006. with regards to the piercing screams at frequent intervals which are causing distress to the animals residing at the nearby wildlife sanctuary owned by Mr. depositing or otherwise disposing of the waste. taking the best available steps to mitigate the noise does not necessarily mean that a common law nuisance cannot be established. Anyone who imports.

when the public’s interest is at hand. It is a source of water for the community therefore any damage to it will definitely affect the public. Not only was the damage> . The fact that the government has granted authority to Bridge Development Ltd for the expansion does not excuse it from complying with the requirements provided by but the actual harm is definitely excessive. <wasteonline. This definitely constitutes statutory nuisance. 15 WasteOnline. which is. The Controlled Waste Regulations 1992. the public at large is affected by the said acts. retrieved 13 November 2006. This is clearly a case of public nuisance since not only is there damage to another’s property but the property damaged is relevant to the public at hand. a crime. not only during the beginning but throughout the whole period of operation. CONCLUSION It is clear that the acts which the individuals have complained of against Bridge Development Ltd definitely constitute not only tort but statutory nuisance. it is not only a tort but a statutory nuisance. It is clear that although only a few individuals have voiced their concern about the said acts. It started when the water from the ride seeped through a crack and collected behind a wall adjoining a railway line and eventually pushed the water over resulting to a landslide which damaged a sewer pipe owned and managed by the local water company. Said compliance must continuously exist. The last issue to discuss is the landslide which occurred in relation to the multilevel log flume ride.that transfer of the waste only occurs to an "authorized person" and that the transfer is accompanied by a written description of the waste.15 This problem is definitely a statutory nuisance and must be dealt with by the council. As we stated earlier.