Leanse vs Egerton

In the Honourable

KING’S BENCH

In the matter of

Leanse ...............................................................................Plaintiff

V.

Egerton..............................................................................defendent

Counsel on behalf of Plaintiff

Taruna Shandilya

Semester III Section B

Roll No. 180

Page 1
 Leanse vs Egerton

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviation----------------------------------------------------- 3

2. List of Cases------------------------------------------------------------- 3

3. Statements of facts------------------------------------------------------ 4

4. Issue Raised-------------------------------------------------------------- 5

5. Summary of Pleadings-------------------------------------------------- 6

6. Contentions-------------------------------------------------------------- 7

7. Prayer---------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

Page 2
 Leanse vs Egerton

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. AIR________________________________________________All India Report
2. No.________________________________________________ Number
3. NSW___________________________________________New South Wales
4. V. _________________________________________________Versus
5. SCC________________________________________________Supreme Court Cases

LIST OF BOOKS

1. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts , 19th Edition, 2008, Publisher: Allahabad Law Agency.

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 24th Edition 1997 Reprint 2002; Published
by Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur, India.

LIST OF CASES

1. Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.,1

2. Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. v. Mc Mullan2
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti3
4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi4
5. Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal
6. Solatu v. De Held5

1
(1856) LR 11 Exch. 781
2
1934 AC 1
3
AIR 1966 SC 1750
4
AIR 1999 SC 1929
5
(1851) 2 Sim NS 133

Page 3
 Leanse vs Egerton

STATEMENT OF FACT

1. In November 1940, Irene Leanse was walking down the road Curzon Street when
a piece of glass fell from a broken window belonging to the defendant.

2. The defendant had failed to take necessary steps to obviate the danger.

3. The plaintiff contends that such a conduct amounts to nuisance and that defendant
had allowed it to get into the dangerous condition.

4. No reasonable opportunities were taken by the defendant to provide for a safe

passage or warning note.

Page 4
 Leanse vs Egerton

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the Defendant was negligent and caused nuisance?

Page 5
 Leanse vs Egerton

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the defendant was negligent and caused nuisance?

In the immediate case, the plaintiff, while walking on the highway was injured on a Tuesday
by glass falling from a window in an unoccupied house belonging to the defendant, the
window having been broken in an air raid during the previous Friday night. It is submitted
that the defendant must be presumed to have knowledge of the existence of the nuisance, that
he had failed to take reasonable steps to bring it to an end although he had ample time to do
so, and that, therefore, he had “continued” it and was liable to the plaintiff.

Page 6
 Leanse vs Egerton

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

1. There Defendant Was Negligent And Caused Nuisance

It is humbly submitted that:

“ Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by
the defendant to the plaintiff.”6

In the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.,7; ALDERSON, B. defined

negligence as, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do,
or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.

In the case of Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. v. Mc Mullan8; LORD WRIGHT said, negligence
means more than headless or careless conduct, whether in commission or omission; it
properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the
person to whom the duty owed.

It is submitted that an essential condition for the liability in negligence is that the plaintiff
must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform
that duty. Reliance is placed on the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Subhagwanti9; a clock-tower in the heart of the Chandni Chowk, Delhi collapsed causing the
death of a number of persons. The structure was 80 years old whereas its normal life was 40-
45 years. The Municipal Corporation of Dellhi having the control of the structure failed to
take care and was therefore, liable.

In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi10; a person passing by the
road died because of fall of branch of a tree standing on the road, on his head. The Municipal
Corporation was held liable.

NUISANCE
6
Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Ninth Edition, 1971, p. 45
7
(1856) LR 11 Exch. 781
8
1934 AC 1
9
AIR 1966 SC 1750
10
AIR 1999 SC 1929

Page 7
 Leanse vs Egerton

A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, “An act not warranted
by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes
inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty’s
subjects”.

In Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, the defendant created a brick grinding machine adjoining
the premises of plaintiff, who was a medical practitioner. The brick grinding machine
generated dust, which polluted the atmosphere. The dust interred the consulting chamber of
the plaintiff and caused physical inconvenience to him and patients, and their red coating on
cloths, caused by the dust, could be apparently visible. It was held that special damages to the
plaintiff had been proved and a permanent injunction was issued against the defendant
restraining him from running his bricks grinding machine there.

In Solatu v. De Held11, the plaintiff resided in a house next to a Roman Catholic Chapel of
which the defendant was the priest and the chapel bell was rung at all hours of the day and
night. It was held that the ringing was a public nuisance and the plaintiff was held entitled to
an injunction.

In the immediate case, the plaintiff, while walking on the highway was injured on a Tuesday
by glass falling from a window in an unoccupied house belonging to the defendant, the
window having been broken in an air raid during the previous Friday night. It is submitted
that the defendant must be presumed to have knowledge of the existence of the nuisance, that
he had failed to take reasonable steps to bring it to an end although he had ample time to do
so, and that, therefore, he had “continued” it and was liable to the plaintiff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11
(1851) 2 Sim NS 133

Page 8
 Leanse vs Egerton

Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited.
This Honourable King’s Bench may be pleased to pass a decision and declare that:

1. There plaintiff suffered due to nuisance of defendant

2. The plaint is accepted.

Or pass any other order which can be deemed fit in the spirit of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is humbly submitted before the Honourable King’s Bench.

Date: 26th September 2016 Counsel for Plaintiff

Place: London Taruna Shandilya

Section ‘B’ Semester III

Roll No. 180

Page 9