|
''Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc'' () 1 All ER 53 is a case in English tort law that established the principle that claims under nuisance and ''Rylands v Fletcher'' must include a requirement that the damage be foreseeable; it also suggested that ''Rylands'' was a sub-set of nuisance rather than an independent tort, a debate eventually laid to rest in ''Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council''. The Cambridge Water Company were a company responsible for providing potable water to the inhabitants of Cambridge and the surrounding areas. In 1976, they purchased a borehole outside Sawston to deal with rising demand. In 1980, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the United Kingdom did in 1982. It was found that the Sawston borehole was contaminated with PCE that had originated in a tannery owned by Eastern Counties Leather. Prior to 1980, there was no knowledge that PCE should be avoided or that it could cause harm, but the Cambridge Water Company brought a case against Eastern Counties Leather anyway. The case first went to the High Court of Justice, where Kennedy J dismissed claims under nuisance, negligence and ''Rylands v Fletcher'' because the harm was not foreseeable. His decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, who cited an "obscure decision" to justify doing so.〔 The case then went to the House of Lords, where a decision was read by Lord Goff on 9 December 1993. Goff first countered the Court of Appeal decision, restoring Kennedy's dismissal of the case, before moving on to the deeper legal points. Based on the original decision in ''Rylands'', Goff argued that it had always been intended for foreseeability of harm to be a factor, something not previously put into law by the English judiciary. He then stated that ''Rylands'' was arguably a sub-set of nuisance, not an independent tort, and as such the factors which led him to including a test of foreseeability of harm in ''Rylands'' cases also imposed such a test on all nuisance cases. The decision in ''Cambridge Water Co'' made an immediate change to the law, for the first time requiring foreseeability of harm to be considered in cases brought under ''Rylands v Fletcher'' and the general tort of nuisance. It was also significant in implying that ''Rylands'' was not an independent tort, something later concluded in the ''Transco'' case. Goff's judgment has been criticised on several points by academics, who highlight flaws in wording which leave parts of the judgment ambiguous and a selective assessment of ''Rylands'' that ignores outside influences. ==Facts== The Cambridge Water Company Ltd was established by a private Act of Parliament in 1853 to provide water to the residents of Cambridge and the surrounding area; by 1976, the population served had risen to approximately 275,000.〔Wilkinson (1994) p.799〕 With the rising demand, the company purchased a borehole outside Sawston, constructing pumping equipment and integrating the water from that borehole into their system in 1979. Tests undertaken both before the purchase, and in 1979, had demonstrated that the water was safe for public consumption.〔Quinn (2000) p.290〕 During the late 1970s, concerns were expressed about the presence of perchloroethene (PCE) in water, and as a result a European Directive was issued in 1980 requiring nations of the European Community to establish maximum acceptable levels of PCE in water; the United Kingdom did this in 1982. PCE was discovered in the borehole; it was not tested for earlier because there was no need to regulate the levels. As a result, the Cambridge Water Company was forced to cease pumping the water, and instead find a new borehole elsewhere.〔Kutner (1995) p.77〕 An investigation immediately ensued. The investigators concluded that the PCE had come from Eastern Counties Leather plc, a leather tannery in Sawston. The tannery used PCE as a degreasing agent, beginning in the 1960s; by 1976, of this chemical were used by the tannery each year, with up to on the premises at any one time. PCE was leaking out of the drums it was carried in, first by being spilt when it was tipped into the degreasing machines and second by leaking from near-empty drums. Although these spills were individually small, it was estimated around of PCE were spilled each year. These spills collected in the chalk underlying Sawston until groundwater swept them into the Cambridge Water Company's borehole.〔Quinn (2000) p.291〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|