|
Date:
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:06:30 -0400
From:
Daved Muttart
Subject:
Special Sensitivity and Nuisance
There
are the sound studio cases. For example, in Pinewood Recording Studios
Ltd. and City Tower Development Corp. [1996] B.C.J. No. 2322, the
plaintiff's special sensitivity to sound resulted in damages being
awarded when adjacent construction resulted in interference with
its operations. I seem to recall a similar Ontario case but I can't
immediately put my finger on it ...
Daved
Muttart
On
9/28/04 3:35 PM, Jason Neyers wrote:
Dear
Colleagues:
For
those of you with an interest in nuisance, I would be interested
in your opinion of the following fact pattern based on the classic
case of Rogers v. Elliot. In Rogers, the plaintiff
was affected by the defendant's ringing of a church bell which caused
the plaintiff to suffer convulsions. The court ruled that the plaintiff
could not recover because the plaintiff's use of his land was especially
sensitive (he was the only one so adversely affected) and the defendant's
actions were not activated by malice.
What
if the facts were changed and the town in which the plaintiff lived
was inhabited by a majority of people like him who suffered from
the "bell ringing equals convulsions" disorder? Would the bell ringing
then be a nuisance because of the local standard?
Any
thoughts? --
Daved
Muttart
http://www.interlog.com/~dmm
<<<<
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next
Message >>>>>
| 