References: [1972] 1 All ER 1142, [1972] EWCA Civ 7, [1972] 2 WLR 633, [1972] 1 QB 496, [1972] RTR 169
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sachs LJ, Edmund Davies LJ, Stephenson LJ
Ratio: A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. The accident was due wholly to the negligence of the motorcyclist. ‘sine qua non is not an all-sufficient basis for establishing liability.’ In criminal law at least nuisance must be actual as opposed to potential.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Morton v Wheeler CA (1956 CA 33)
Sharp spikes by the side of a highway were said to be a nuisance. Lord Denning MR said: ‘As all lawyers know, the tort of public nuisance is a curious mixture. It covers a multitude of sins. We are concerned to-day with only one of them, namely, a . . - Cited – Maitland v Raisbeck CA ([1944] 1 KB 689)
Lord Greene MR said: ‘Every person . . has a right to use the highway and, if something happens to him which in fact causes an obstruction to the highway but is in no way referable to his fault, it is quite impossible, in my view, to say that ipso . . - Cited – Farrel v Mowlem ([1954] Lloyds LR 440)
The defendant had without justification laid a pipe across a pavement and the plaintiff tripped over it and was injured.
Held: The defendant was liable in nuisance. Devlin J said, as to the pipe: ‘No doubt it is a comparatively harmless sort . . - Cited – Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL ([1947] AC 156, [1946] 2 All ER 471, [1947] LJR 39, [1946] 175 LT 413, [1946] 62 TLR 646, [1946] 91 Sol J Jo 54, Bailii, [1946] UKHL 2)
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . . - Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC ([1967] 2 AC 617, Bailii, [1966] UKPC 1, [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 657, [1966] 2 All ER 709, [1966] 3 WLR 498)
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . . - Cited – Parish v Judd ([1960] 1 WLR 867)
A lorry and a car it was towing stopped, obstructing the highway. The plaintiff crashed into them, and claimed that they constituted a nuisance. The vehicles had only just stopped, and the driver was checking that all was well with the car. The . . - Cited – Morton v Wheeler CA (1956 CA 33)
Sharp spikes by the side of a highway were said to be a nuisance. Lord Denning MR said: ‘As all lawyers know, the tort of public nuisance is a curious mixture. It covers a multitude of sins. We are concerned to-day with only one of them, namely, a . . - Cited – Trevetts v Lee CA ([1955] 1 WLR 113, [1955] 1 All ER 406)
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘The law as regards obstruction to highways is conveniently stated in a passage in Salmond on Torts, 13th edition: ‘A nuisance to a highway consists either in obstructing it or in rendering it dangerous’. Then a numbed of . . - Cited – Morton v Weaver CA (Unreported, 31/01/1956)
The court distinguished between obstructions of a highway and dangers created on it. Lord Denning MR asked: ‘How are we to determine whether a state of affairs in or near a highway is a danger?’ and answered ‘This depends, I think, on whether injury . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Rouse v Squires CA (Bailii, [1973] EWCA Civ 9, [1972] 2 All ER 903, [1973] 2 WLR 925, [1973] RTR 550, [1973] QB 889)
. . - Cited – Houghton v Stannard QBD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2666 (QB))
. .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 18 November 2018
Ref: 188834
The post Dymond v Pearce: CA 13 Jan 1972 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.