How do I structure my answer for this law question (tort)

Original post by james_law

Duty
Breach
Causation

comme d'habitude. :smile:

Reply 3

This is straightforward Nuisance/Rylands v Fletcher.
Regarding the smells and the noise, talk about physical interference and talk about the elements 1 by 1.
Regarding the chemical leak, talk about the Definition of RvF and how the chemical was 'dangerous' and 'escaped' from the Factory, but mention the 'Act of God' Principle of how it was unforeseeable harm.

Reply 4

Original post by james_law

Duty
Breach
Causation

this is not Negligence!!

Reply 5

Original post by sfh123

this is not Negligence!!

Yes it is. Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance are just specialised types of negligence, and in any case the lines between RvF, nuisance and negligence (in general) are blurred.

Reply 6

username3689312

14

Original post by sfh123

this is not Negligence!!

LOOOOL

Reply 7

Original post by CatusStarbright

Yes it is. Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance are just specialised types of negligence, and in any case the lines between RvF, nuisance and negligence (in general) are blurred.

Although you're right, I'm speaking from the perspective of how you specifically need to answer the given question. From all the examiner reports I've read, a question like this requires no mention of negligence whatsoever. You directly need to apply the principles/case law given in Nuisance/RvF and apply it to the scenario. Negligence can only be mentioned (very briefly) if there is an essay question concerning the development of the law of nuisance and any distinctions that need to be noted between negligence and nuisance; a proposition doesn't require anything except the relevant case law/principles.

Reply 8

Original post by sfh123

Although you're right, I'm speaking from the perspective of how you specifically need to answer the given question. From all the examiner reports I've read, a question like this requires no mention of negligence whatsoever. You directly need to apply the principles/case law given in Nuisance/RvF and apply it to the scenario. Negligence can only be mentioned (very briefly) if there is an essay question concerning the development of the law of nuisance and any distinctions that need to be noted between negligence and nuisance; a proposition doesn't require anything except the relevant case law/principles.

Oh I would always go straight to the specific rules, of course! But the basic principle of 'Duty, breach, causation' is what would be discussed here.

Reply 9

Reality Check

Original post by sfh123

Although you're right, I'm speaking from the perspective of how you specifically need to answer the given question. From all the examiner reports I've read, a question like this requires no mention of negligence whatsoever. You directly need to apply the principles/case law given in Nuisance/RvF and apply it to the scenario. Negligence can only be mentioned (very briefly) if there is an essay question concerning the development of the law of nuisance and any distinctions that need to be noted between negligence and nuisance; a proposition doesn't require anything except the relevant case law/principles.

Umm, it very much is negligence.

Reply 10

Original post by Reality Check

Umm, it very much is negligence.

Please read this first and then answer.

(edited 4 years ago)

Original post by sfh123

Please read this first and then answer.

I wish the nonsense in your brain hadn't escaped and done mischief to this thread.

Reply 12

Original post by Trinculo

I wish the nonsense in your brain hadn't escaped and done mischief to this thread.

There's no need to be immature to mask your intellectual deficiencies. I'm simply helping others understand if not learn the law.

Reply 13

Reality Check

Original post by sfh123

Please read this first and then answer.

We don't tend to use basic Level 2 textbooks at Cambridge. We learn the law by reading cases, which is what I would strongly urge you to do.

Reply 14

Original post by sfh123

Please read this first and then answer.

Can I just say that this is to some degree the author's take on the subject. I suggest you go have a read at what the range of academics have to say - there are other opinions available! Besides, this doesn't say that private nuisance isn't related to negligence, what it does it show some differences to state that this is a specific branch of negligence.

I'd just like to ask, what level are you at? I suspect this is A Level material, which often lacks nuance to be more accessible.

Reply 15

Original post by Reality Check

We don't tend to use basic Level 2 textbooks at Cambridge. We learn the law by reading cases, which is what I would strongly urge you to do.

Can you pls give me the name of the lecturer/professor that conducts your courses for Civil Law? So I can look into it and learn what they have to say. The picture I cited was actually from a casebook of tort recommended by Cambridge professors specifically.

Reply 16

Original post by CatusStarbright

Can I just say that this is to some degree the author's take on the subject. I suggest you go have a read at what the range of academics have to say - there are other opinions available! Besides, this doesn't say that private nuisance isn't related to negligence, what it does it show some differences to state that this is a specific branch of negligence.

I'd just like to ask, what level are you at? I suspect this is A Level material, which often lacks nuance to be more accessible.

I'm a 3rd-year student at the University of London, I've already obtained a 2:1 in Tort from 2nd year. What about you?

Reply 17

username3689312

14

**thread has been de-railed**

Original post by sfh123

I'm a 3rd-year student at the University of London, I've already obtained a 2:1 in Tort from 2nd year. What about you?

obtained 2:1 in tort and don't know that the tort of nuisance is a type of negligence.........I think someone is telling porkies.

Reply 18