The Defendant owned a house near the highway. A rail in a nearby fence of the area railing had been broken away by some boys, and there was therefore a gap in the railings. A child climbed through fell into an open area, injuring himself. The Defendant did not live in the house, and knew nothing of the the removal of the rail which had happened only three days before the accident. The case in nuisance was dismissed on the facts by the jury.
Held: The appeal failed. Vaughan Williams LJ analysed the case of Saxby and said that the effect of each judgment would say that to impose liability upon the possessor of land in such a case, there must be either the creation of a nuisance by him or a continuance by him of a nuisance.
Fletcher Moulton LJ said that: ‘In a case where the nuisance is created by the act of a trespasser, it is done without the permission of the owner and against his will, and he cannot in any sense be said to have caused the nuisance; but the law recognizes that there may be a continuance by him of the nuisance. In that case the gravamen is the continuance of the nuisance, and not the original causing of it. An owner of premises may have a duty to prevent the continuance of the nuisance, but it is obvious that, just as where the allegation is that he has caused the nuisance it must be proved that it was there by his act or that of some one for whose action he is responsible, so, where it is alleged that he is responsible for the continuance of the nuisance it must be proved that it was continued by his permission. He cannot be said to have permitted the continuance of that of which he had no knowledge.’
The knowledge of servants and agents for whom the owner is responsible must be attributed to him, and that cases might arise in which his or their want of knowledge may be due to neglect of duty.
Judges:
Vaughan Williams LJ, Fletcher Moulton LJ and Farwell LJ
Citations:
(1911) 2 KBD 633
Citing:
Cited – Saxby v Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co 1869
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had diverted a water course causing them damage. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Leakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276815