|
Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a ()'s land or his use or enjoyment of that land",〔 and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects";〔 public nuisance is also a crime. Both torts have been present from the time of Henry III, being affected by a variety of philosophical shifts through the years which saw them become first looser and then far more stringent and less protecting of an individual's rights. Each tort requires the claimant to prove that the defendant's actions caused interference, which was unreasonable, and in some situations the intention of the defendant may also be taken into account. A significant difference is that private nuisance does not allow a claimant to claim for any personal injury suffered, while public nuisance does. Private nuisance has received a range of criticism, with academics arguing that its concepts are poorly defined and open to judicial manipulation; Conor Gearty has written that "Private nuisance has, if anything, become even more confused and confusing. Its chapter lies neglected in the standard works, little changed over the years, its modest message overwhelmed by the excitements to be found elsewhere in tort. Any sense of direction which may have existed in the old days is long gone".〔 In addition, it has been claimed that the tort of private nuisance has "lost its separate identity as a strict liability tort and been assimilated in all but name into the fault-based tort of negligence",〔 and that private and public nuisance "have little in common except the accident of sharing the same name".〔 ==History== The tort of nuisance has existed since the reign of Henry III, with few changes, and most of them merely technical.〔Brenner (1974) p.403〕 It originally came from the Latin ''nocumentum'', and then the French ''nuisance'', with Henry de Bracton initially defining the tort of nuisance as an infringement of easements.〔Winfield (1931) p.189〕 The tort was in line with the economic status quo of the time, protecting claimants against their neighbours' rights to develop land, and thus has been described as "rural, agricultural, and conservative".〔Brenner (1974) p.404〕 There were initially four remedies for nuisance; the assize of nuisance, similar to the assize of novel disseisin, which was limited to situations where the defendant's actions interfered with the claimant's seisin;〔Winfield (1931) p.190〕 the action ''guod permittat prosternere'', where the land in question was alienated; the writ of trespass; and the "action upon the case for nuisance", which became the main remedy.〔Winfield (1931) p.191〕 This was because it was far faster than the other writs and actions, and unlike them did not require that both parties be freeholders. It was, however, limited to damages, and unlike the other remedies did not allow for abatement.〔Winfield (1931) p.192〕 By the 17th century the judicial philosophy had changed to allow the protection of a claimant's enjoyment of their land, with the duty being on the party that caused the nuisance to prevent it: "as every man is bound to look to his cattle, as to keep them out of his neighbour's ground; so he must keep in the filth of his house of office, that it may not flow in upon and damnify his neighbour".〔Brenner (1974) p.406〕 During the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution, the law of nuisance significantly changed; rather than the previous tests a standard of care was instead expected, with different standards applying to individuals and companies.〔Brenner (1974) p.408〕 In reaching these decisions the courts "effectively emasculated the Law of Nuisance as a useful curb on industrial pollution".〔McLaren (1983) p.157〕 In ''St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping'',〔() 11 HL Cas 642〕 for example, several judges "were explicit in suggesting that they were affected by the adverse effect of a more draconian view on the economic welfare of the country's industrial cities".〔McLaren (1983) p.158〕 This contrasted with the previous view, which was that when liability was established for a case where the defendant's actions had interfered with the enjoyment of land, the defendant would be liable however trivial the interference.〔McLaren (1983) p.169〕 The decisions reached during this period vary, however, mostly due to the differing judicial philosophies of the time. While A.V. Dicey maintained that the prevalent philosophy was one of ''laissez faire'' thanks to the influence of philosophers and economists such as Adam Smith, Michael W. Flinn asserted that: Another common error... has been the assumption that the classical economists were the only effective influence on social and economic policy in the early and mid-nineteenth century. This is a curiously perverse view, since it ignores powerful voices like those of Bentham, Chadwick, the social novelists, many by no means inarticulate members of the medical profession, the humanitarians, the Christian Socialists and most sections of the many working class movements. There was in short, nothing approaching a consensus of opinion concerning laissez-faire and state intervention, even in the very narrow social sector represented by governments, Parliament, and the press. In practice the ears of ministers were assaulted by a confused babble of voices rather than bewitched by the soft whisper of a single plea for inaction.〔McLaren (1983) p.192〕 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「Nuisance in English law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|