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 of nuisance in that most members of the public may be expected to see the pipe, and it will not cause them any grave inconvenience, but that does not prevent it being a nuisance in law’, and as to nuisance: ‘I think the law still is that any person who actually creates a nuisance is liable for it and for the consequences which flow from it whether he is negligent or not.’
Judges:
Devlin J
Citations:
[1954] Lloyds LR 440
Citing:
Cited – Maitland v Raisbeck CA 1944
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 by:
Cited – Dymond v Pearce CA 13-Jan-1972
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.265959
