Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:47:41
UK Compensation Bill Published
defendants in the Court of Appeal decision in Daborn v Bath
Tramways Motor Co Ltd were not in government service, so far
as I am aware. It concerned the driving of an ambulance but the
defendant is a private limited company. The NHS was created after
and some other economists assert that in English law the social
utility is ignored. This is just wrong.
nuisance we see the same sort of taking into account of public costs
and benefits going on. In leafy North Oxford (where I am currently
sitting) certain sorts of activities would be a private nuisance
because of the nature of the locality. In the windy ghetto of East
Oxford (where I live) they would not.
Denning went too far when he said in Miller v Jackson:
summer time village cricket is the delight of everyone."
seemed to give that as a reason for his decision that a cricket
club was not committing a nuisance in firing cricket balls into
the gardens of neighbours. But it seems clear that utility is relevant
in nuisance. If in Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett the
gun had been fired in order to kill vermin there would have been
no liability. If the farmer had been shooting on a whim, because
he happened to like loud noises, with the knowledge of the potential
harm to his neighbour, he should be liable.
Robert and others:
am sure that I am probably wrong but I was under the impression
that under English law the social utility argument was technically
only valid in situations of government services (e.g., Denning in
Hertfordshire). So it would be the law in the case you
cited which I am assuming was a government services cases but it
is not a general common law principle that social utility is relevant
in all negligence cases (though it might be a subliminal undercurrent
in many cases). That is, as I understand it, generally the Canadian
law on the subject.
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next