CASE STUDY

Case Study

Case Study

A public nuisance hinders with the public as a class, not only one individual or an assembly of citizens. No municipal remedy lives for a personal civilian harmed by a public nuisance, even if his or her damage was larger than the damage endured by others; a criminal individual prosecution is the exclusive remedy. (Allen 2001:15-20) Even tough, if in this case Jason endured damage that is distinct from that endured by the general public, then Jason may sustain a tort activity for damages against Julia. For example, if Julia had not utilised long sufficient bolts to rectify the sign to its bracket and therefore the signal dropped from its bracket and impaired Jason vehicle, so Jason can take actions against Julia. In this case Jason could not sustain a nuisance action for the inconvenience. However, Jason may convey a tort activity for injuries.

It would appear that an alternate activity for public nuisance in such attenuating components would not be of important aid in the most of positions, and a claim for the tort of public nuisance is supposed to be now of very restricted usefulness. This is due to the reason that since the seminal conclusion of Overseas Tank Ship (U.K.) Ltd.v. Miller S.S. Co. Pty., The Wagon Mound (No. 2), it has been established that whereas negligence is not an absolutely crucial component in nuisance, regardless some obvious error is nearly habitually essential and obvious error usually engages forseeability. No doubt that the Alberta Court of Appeal in the case Abbott v. Kasza has said that with esteem to vehicles utilising a main street there is no longer any distinction between activities bordered in negligence and those bordered in nuisance as forseeability is an absolutely crucial component in working out liability in both actions.(Buckley 1996:41-52)

It is ...