I believe damages for personal injury are also generally available in a private nuisance action in the United States.  See, e.g., http://www.jurispub.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=9857.

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com> wrote:

In Ireland it is clear that damages for personal injuries can still be
claimed in an action for private nuisance. The leading case is
Hanrahan v Merck Sharp and Dohme [1988] ILRM 629. This is also a
leading authority on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in Ireland.
Briefly, a farmer sued a chemical company (the defendant) claiming
that its emissions had caused his family and animals injury, as well
as property damage. The case was dealt with in the High Court on the
basis that it was a claim in nuisance. The Supreme Court noted the
overlap between the cause of action for private nuisance and the
Rylands v Fletcher tort but approached the case as a claim for
nuisance (at paragraph 15 of the internet copy). At parragraph 19, the
Court clearly recognized that damages for private nuisance could be
awarded for personal injuries.

"19. In this case the plaintiffs' main complaints, namely that the
emissions from the factory damaged their health and that of the
livestock on the farm,
are of so pronounced and serious a nature that no question of nicety
of reaction arises. Either those complaints were caused by the
emissions from the
factory or they were not. If on the balance of probabilities they can
be said to derive from factory emissions, then the case for nuisance
has been made
out. Anything short of that degree of proof would not support a
finding of nuisance."

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1988/1.html

Kind regards

Ger

On 8/22/14, Donal Nolan <donal.nolan@law.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Jason
>
> On the particular question of recovery of damages for personal injury
> arising out of substantial interference with an easement, I am not aware of
> any English authority allowing such a claim, and I would be surprised if
> there were any, since I am not aware of any English private nuisance case
> (excluding Rylands v Fletcher) where damages have been awarded for personal
> injury.
>
> As for Windeyer J's statement, I can see an argument for allowing a claimant
> to recover for personal injury consequential on unlawful interference with
> his/her land, but I find the analogy drawn with the position in public
> nuisance unpersuasive, as did Dyson LJ in his judgment in the Corby Group
> Litigation case [2008] EWCA Civ 463.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Donal
>
> From: Neil Foster [mailto:neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au]
> Sent: 22 August 2014 00:18
> To: Jason Neyers; obligations@uwo.ca
> Subject: RE: Personal Injury and Easements
>
> Dear Jason;
> You are no doubt aware of this but in Australia it still seems to be open to
> recover damages for personal injury flowing from private nuisance. See
> Pelmothe v Phillips (1899) 20 LR (NSW) (L) 58, and more recent dicta of
> Windeyer J in Benning v Wong (1969) 122 CLR 249 at 318 also support
> recovery. His Honour was considering a claim in Rylands v Fletcher for
> escape of gas from a gas pipe but said:
>
> A plaintiff who sues as an occupier of land, basing his case upon Rylands v.
> Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, is in my opinion entitled to recover damages
> for all harm which he has suffered which he could recover in an action for
> nuisance or trespass to land. In nuisance his claim would not be only for an
> injurious affection of his land diminishing the value of his interest in it.
> It would extend to harm done him by the disturbance of the healthy and
> peaceful enjoyment by him of his right there. I see no reason why those
> damages should not extend to any personal harm the nuisance has there caused
> him. A person who has a personal right of action because of some particular
> damage he has suffered by reason of a public nuisance, for example if he be
> hurt by the obstruction of a highway, has long been regarded as being
> entitled to recover for medical expenses, loss of earnings and so forth :
> see the precedent and cases referred to in Bullen & Leake, Precedents of
> Pleadings, 3rd ed. (1868), pp. 379-381. In the same way in an action for a
> private nuisance to a plaintiff's land, by for example polluting the air,
> damages have always been regarded as recoverable for such resulting harm as
> poisoning the plaintiff's animals : Bullen & Leake, Precedents of Pleadings,
> 3rd ed. (1868), pp. 382-383. If a land occupier who sues in nuisance can
> recover because his animals were made sick I cannot see why if he sues
> relying on Rylands v. Fletcher he cannot recover because he has himself been
> made sick.
>
> This doesn't quite address your question because the plaintiff in this case
> was treated as an occupier of land, not simply someone who enjoyed an
> easement; but it may be relevant.
> Regards
> Neil
>
>
>
> Associate Professor Neil Foster
> Newcastle Law School
> Faculty of Business and Law
>
> T: +61 2 49217430

> E: Neil.Foster@newcastle.edu.au<mailto:Neil.Foster@newcastle.edu.au>

> Web: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/neil-foster
> Papers: http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/
>
> The University of Newcastle (UoN)
> University Drive
> Callaghan NSW 2308
> Australia
>
> CRICOS Provider 00109J

> [http://s.uon.nu/i/1.gif]<http://www.newcastle.edu.au/>

>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jason Neyers [mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:50 PM

> To: obligations@uwo.ca<mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>

> Subject: ODG: Personal Injury and Easements
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> Does anyone know of a case where damages for personal injury were awarded in
> a nuisance case which were consequential on an interference with an
> easement? I realize that since Hunter v Canary Wharf such a case should not
> exist but was wondering if there was anything in the pre-Hunter UK law or in
> Canadian law.  I couldn't seem to find anything in Gale.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
>
> Jason Neyers
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Faculty of Law
>
> Western University
>
> N6A 3K7
>
> (519) 661-2111 x. 88435
>