Torts September 1th









A tort is a civil wrong other than a contract in which the law will provide compensation
and/or redress (remedy)
Strict liability:
o Nuisance
Absolute liability
o When you do the action and basically you are automatically help liable for it
o If you’re caught speeding, you’re going to be held liable for it
Vicariously liable
o If an employee does something and the boss will be held liable for that
Compensable loss
o Societal values
o Compensable
 Personal injury
 Damage to property
o Not compensable
 Hurt feelings
 Loss of a view
Psychological harm falls under negligence and it is only recognized recently (earliest
maybe 2012)
Tort law comes in b/w criminal and contract to provide remedy
Principles of Tort Law
o Primary purpose Hall indicates is compensation
o Two types of deterrence
 The person that did it won’t do it again
 To prevent society in general from doing it
o Shifting loss onto responsible party not injured party
o Punishment
 As deterrence
 Expected to make up for harm caused
 If you’ve done something extremely egregious then court would add more
damages as a punitive measure
o Deterrence
 Specific
 I need consequences so I won’t engage in this type of behaviour
 I need to consequences so other wont
o Remedy
o Justice
Workers comp
o I give up my legal right to sue because workers comp would cover
 Up to a certain degree of conduct. If they are doing something harmful on
purpose, then it could even translate to criminal law
o So this is to introduce that tort law is not the only way to get compensation
Torts September 16th










What is a private nuisance?
o A private nuisance is an unreasonable interference in the enjoyment and use
of your land
o Use and enjoyment for the ordinary purposes of life not some special use og
my property (argued in the fox case -but court disagreed with that)
What interests is nuisance law trying to balance?
law of nuisance is the way the common law elaborates the rights and duties that govern
the relations between neighbours What does the plaintiff need to prove to succeed in a
nuisance claim?
Does malice matter in nuisance?
Things that injure property (pollution, flooding, vibration) – more likely to be a
nuisance
Things that make life uncomfortable by intruding (e.g. noise, odour) – less likely, but
still quite possible to be a nuisance
without intruding (e.g. blocking a view, or sunlight, changing air circulation, NIMBY,
aesthetics) – seldom a nuisance
Things that injure property (pollution, flooding, vibration) – more likely to be a
nuisance
Things that make life uncomfortable
o by intruding (e.g. noise, odour) – less likely, but still quite possible to be a
nuisance
o without intruding (e.g. blocking a view, or sunlight, changing air circulation,
NIMBY, aesthetics) – seldom a nuisance
In Tort Law the burden of proof will fall onto the plaintiff
APPLEBY V ERIE TOBACCO CO
(1910), 22 OLR 533 (Div Ct)




Issue: Tobacco company is making noxious odour which is preventing Appleby from
enjoying use of their land
Reasons:
Locality
o What makes life less comfortable and causes sensible discomfort and annoyance
is a proper subject of injunction.”
o Reasonable enjoyment
o Previous case law
o Nuisance is not determined by the susceptibility of individual people
 Will make law changeable and unpredictable
o Impact on health
 You don’t have to show a negative impact on health
o Even though defendant tried not to make smell it still happened
o Delayed injunction
Outcome: Injunction
o You can’t measure annoyance in money


o No one should be required to suffer a nuisance for a small monetary value
o Money won’t stop smell, injunction will
o Delayed injunction because company would have to suffer (balancing economic
issues)
In case of Nuisance it is likely that court will decide for injunction vs. damages
Ratio
o Sets the definition for what a nuisance is
o A nuisance is anything that causes material discomfort or annoyance for the
ordinary purposes of life, considering the local standard, regardless of D’s
conduct.
Torts September 21st
APPLEBY V ERIE TOBACCO CO



-----
(1910), 22 OLR 533 (Div Ct)
Can you think of any factors that are not mentioned by the court, but which ought to
be relevant?
o Time of day
o Significance of company to community
o Motive (?)
Why does the court favour the interests of the plaintiff over the interests of the
defendant? Do the “reasons” given by the judge supply any reasons for preferring the
plaintiff? If they do not, what is the value of the judge’s reasons? Would anything be lost
if the judge declared that his decision had been determined by a flip of the coin?
o The court believes the plaintiffs witnesses and believe that the smell is really bad
The plaintiff would have no legal recourse in this case so they would have to find a
remedy themselves
FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP V FORTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE, INC
114 So 2d 357 (Fla Dist CA 1959)




PER CURIAM: court was in agreement
They are looking for a temporary or interim injunction
o So, they want the injunction before the court actually decides what to do
o Otherwise the hotel will just keep building
Issue: whether or not it’s a nuisance to build on your own property and block off
another’s’ sunlight or air
Reasons:
o They do not have a legal right to sunlight or air (it’s not property)
o The principle they raise: maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.
 States: It means only that one must use his property so as not to injure the
lawful rights of another
 But Eden Roc does not have a right over the sunlight

Read Q 4 and Case:
o You don’t have a right to the free flow of air