WJEC Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 sample

32 Law of Tort Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) The defendant owned a leather-tanning business. Small quantities of solvents were spilled over a long period of time, seeping through the floor of the building into the soil below. These solvents made their way to the borehole owned by the claimant water company. The borehole was used for supplying water to local residents. The water was contaminated beyond a level that was considered safe and Cambridge Water had to cease using the borehole. Cambridge Water brought actions based on negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868 , see page 40). Eastern Counties Leather was not liable as the damage was too remote. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance and claims based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence. R v Goldstein (2006) The defendant had enclosed some salt in an envelope together with a cheque. It was intended as a joke both because of the age of the debt he was paying and as a reference to a recent anthrax outbreak in the USA which he had discussed with the intended recipient. The salt leaked out of the envelope in a sorting office, creating an anthrax scare and the evacuation of the sorting office. The House of Lords held that there was no public nuisance because it was not proved that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the salt would escape from the envelope in the sorting office and cause a nuisance. It is the same type of foreseeability as in private nuisance. Note that the term ‘fault element’ is often referred as the mens rea in criminal law. Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961) The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound , leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour. Some cotton debris became entangled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly, destroying some boats and the wharf. In this case, a test of remoteness of damage was substituted for the direct consequence test. The test is whether the damage is of a kind that was foreseeable . If a foreseeable type of damage is present, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage, whether or not the extent of damage was foreseeable. The Privy Council found in favour of the defendant, agreeing with the expert witness who provided evidence that the defendant, despite the furnace oil being innately flammable, could not reasonably expect it to burn on water. KEY CASE foreseeable: events the defendant should be able to have predicted could happen. KEY TERMINOLOGY