According to the case scenario it has been seen that BOB has to own a lottery and realizes that he can fulfill his long-ago dream of brewing beer in his own garden. BOB has shifted to a new place and started to pursue his dream by brewing beer in the shed of his garden. The issue that has been faced by his neighbors (Usman and Fatema) is that they used to relax in the garden and have infants whom they used to bring out for giving it fresh air.
However, the strong aroma that is generated during the fermentation period creates problems for the child and has led to numerous health issues. In addition to that, the place has been unhygienic which has been one of the major threatening issues for Usman and Fatema. The scenario has been a case assumption of the private nuisance principal law that is eligible in case there is unnecessary or improper usage of the land that creates major issues for the claimants. Therefore, the application of the “private nuisance law” under the foundation of Tort law is valid for Usman and Fatema.
The law of “The Private Principle in Tort Law” 1932 that has originally conceptualize by “Donoghue v Stevenson” is applicable to the case scenario where BOB’s activity is creating major health issues as well as personal damage to its neighbor unwillingly.
Application
The applicability of tort law is based on the grounds of disputes that arise either in private or interpersonal contexts related to wrongdoings. Unlike other criminal acts or laws, tort law of contract is usually not entered into voluntarily legal action. The basis of the validation of the act is on two grounds “morality and social life”. The application of tort law “Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562” extends to cover scope more than personal injury including property damage and economic injury. The application of the Tort law is also valid in case of ongoing annoyance or issues that are created as the result of land usage. According to the case scenario of “Miller v Jackson” 1977 QB 96 [1]. The claimants that were facing severe damage due to the inappropriate land utilization were provided justice and it was also revealed that the private nuisance is not only subject to residential rights and its protection. In addition to that, it is equally illegible for legal intervention and sought adequate justice. Bob’s activity is not scrutinized to be unethical nor he is willingly creating issues for his neighbors. However, his act of negligence while pursuing his hobby can have a long-term impact on the life of the baby and the parents too. Thus, the act is eligible to be scrutinized by the legal process since bob is neglecting the statements spoken by Usman.
Impressed By Case Study Piece Of Our Delivered Work?
According to the act of “Private principle” law has been laid down that one requires to take concern and care on a personal note that the activities he or she is committing are not creating problems nearby by environment and surroundings. In such a scenario, neighbors are eligible to knock on the door to claims of negligence while facing issues and are equally the culprit equally eligible to get severe punishment in case they do not comply properly. In addition to the foreseeability of the injury, mandatory elements such as the situations that do not comply with the personal duty of care. The claimant of the “Donoghue v Stevenson” act depends on the justification provided by the claimant that there was a reasonably foreseeable act that was negligent by the defendant. Similarly, the act was risky and health injurious for the claimant.
The neighbor principle law became famous for the speech that was delivered by Lord Atkin. This has not only led to the establishment of the law but also became an articulation based on the “private principle” rule. The law seems to have set a common ground for the justification and foundation of the basic ethics that is to be adhered to by the two parties. In protection of the neighbor and concept of care towards the neighbor, the statement has been laid down “people that are closely connected with one’s nearby surrounding that are impacted by my act that I ought reasonably for having contemplation due to my act while indulging directly or indirectly in activities that are problematic for the nearby people are valuable for punishment in the view of tort law. Therefore, according to the application of the law, the neighbors are required to act in favor of the rights and protection of people that are living in their nearby.
The proprietary right needs of the “Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655” are applicable for solving the matter and proceeding with the case scene on a better note[2]. In the case scenario there was a major disturbance to the nearby people caused due to the television signals and the construction 800-foot tower. The act was concerned to be suspected under the surveillance of the negligence act of the tort law and has justification for the damage to personal and proprietary rights.
Grab the best Academic Assistance in just one click
The entire conclusion can be drawn based on the tort law and its applicability for the case scenario of bob and its beer brewing activity creating major issues for its neighbors. The new law is based on the act of negligence that has been created due to their activity of Bob and creates a major issue for his neighbors. The applicability of the tort law has been sought by Usman and Fatema for digging into the depth of the case scenario. It has been observed that the application of the “Donoghue v Stevenson” act will help to solve the dispute created between the two parties on the common grounds of the land utilization and personal usage of the land in an improper way . The suitability of the neighbor principle has effectively helped in providing a major source of justification on behalf of the claimant and solving the issues in a legal process that is better for the claimants.
Case: 2
ILAC model has been used in the valuation of the presented case scenario regarding the "Mark and Ben" and makes implications on the required legal laws and its implication on the presented scenario. The use of legal laws and applications based on the stated situation is critically analyzed to draw an appropriate conclusion.
Issue
The case scenario is critically based on the normal situation which occurs in the park while two brothers ``Mark and Ben" are doing their regular jogging. A Cougar attacked both brothers while jogging in the morning. The cougar's is Fluffy and is kept on a nearby farm; the farm owner has the legal license to keep the cougar. This incident occurred in the morning that has caused both physical and mental damage to "Mark and Ben". Fluffy has attacked the mark causing major damage and it has been described as "bloody and gory". Mark has several physical damages as it has lost his left ear totally and left several scars on his face as well.
The development of anxiety has also been analyzed in the health condition of the mark that has not been developed in the past time at all. On the other hand, the serious impact of the incident has been implicated in Ben as it has no physical injury but it has a major impact on his mental health. Ben has witnessed the entire incident and that has made a negative impact on his mental condition. Ben has now developed the major "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)" and it has affected them to conduct any work. However, Ben has also lost his job due to facing PTSD. The development of these issues after that incident has created a prior impact on conducting daily work and living life in a smooth way.
Law
The valuation of the legal law regarding Psychiatric harm hasgoverned by the government and has implied in conducting the major rules under the "Psychiatric Act 1971". The valuation of the legal act has distinguished under the requirement as "dangerous and non-dangerous Psychiatric". In this case, the major harm of the cougar is a dangerous Psychiatric so has implied the legal act which is determined based on the dangerous Psychiatric and creates an impact on the current case scenario. The valuation of the relevant activities related to the dangerous Psychiatrics included in "section 2(1) of Psychiatric Act 1971"[1]. The use of the required "section 2(1) of Psychiatric Act 1971" has implied that the owner of the Psychiatrics liable to pay for the analyzed damage from the situation and take an effect on providing 100% damage. In the present scenario of "Mark and Ben", both have faced issues mentally and mentallywhich affects their health. The use of this "section 2(1) of Psychiatric Act 1971" can help in analyzing the fair medication charge for damage of the mental issueto Mark as treatment of injured ear and a scar on his face. On the other hand, the compensation for mentaldamages related to anxiety and PTSD has not been paid by the owner of fluffy.
Application
The required valuation of the case scenario related to all cases has been analyzed and created an impact on evaluating the related case scenario in an appropriate way. It has mainly sued two cases that are related to Psychiatric harmsand applied by the law under "Psychiatric Act1971". The two analyzed related cases from this case are "Mirvahedy v Henley - strict liability under the Psychiatric Act 1971" and "Behrens and Another v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd [1957] 2 QB 1". The major case scenario for the case " Behrens and Another v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd [1957] 2 QB 1" is analyzed where a trained "tame elephant" of circus has frightened by the dog and stampedes on the booth that causing serious issues on the "female plaintiff” [3]. The valuation of the major discussion on the case has been analyzed where the owner of the dog (tame animal) has been considered as wild and it can be strictly liable for the damages that occurred at the incident under the Psychiatricact[4].
On the other hand, The court has majorly appealed on the Implication of the "Psychiatric Act 1971" in the case Mirvahedy v Henley - strict liability under the Psychiatric Act 1971"[5]. The court has implicated using the act regarding the "non-dangerous Psychiatricact 1971" which is included in section 2(2).
Conclusion
Mr. Mirvahedy has claimed with the use of the Psychiatricact under section 2 and it has asserted that Mrs. Henley is liable for the major occurred issue by their runway horse. The use of the act has stated that they were liable for the occurred incident and need to be compensated. The reference of these cases makes implicate taking decisions while the occurred incident occurred with the "mark and Ben" by harming the cougar while doing morning jogging.The stated situation and consideration of the case have implicated the required situation and make an effect on being able to receive compensation from the owner of the Cougar. The use of the "animal act 1971" can help in taking the decision and being able to file complaints with the
Reference
“Animal Attacks – the Law - PM Law Solicitors” (PM Law Solicitors - Legal services for you and your familyAugust 30, 2017) <https://pm-law.co.uk/personal-injury-compensation/animal-attacks/animal-attacks-the-law/> accessed March 24, 2023
“Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 - Legalheritage.sclqld.org.au” <https://legalheritage.sclqld.org.au/donoghue-v-stevenson-1932-ac-562> accessed March 24, 2023
“'Reining in' Mirvahedy v Henley - Strict Liability under the Animals Act 1971” (Kennedys) <https://kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/case-review/reining-in-mirvahedy-v-henley-strict-liability-under-the-animals-act-1971/> accessed March 24, 2023
Bennett C and Burley H, “Corporate Accountability: An NGO Perspective” Research Handbook on Corporate Legal Responsibility
Palfreyman D, “Law Cases for the Student Affairs Administrator” (2022) 26 Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 148
Platten C, “Claims under the Animals Act 1971” (Exchange ChambersNovember 13, 2020) <https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/claims-under-the-animals-act-1971/> accessed March 24, 2023
[1] Bennett C and Burley H, “Corporate Accountability: An NGO Perspective” Research Handbook on Corporate Legal Responsibility
Palfreyman D, “Law Cases for the Student Affairs Administrator” (2022) 26 Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 148
[2] Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 - Legalheritage.sclqld.org.au” <https://legalheritage.sclqld.org.au/donoghue-v-stevenson-1932-ac-562> accessed March 24, 2023
[3] “'Reining in' Mirvahedy v Henley - Strict Liability under the Psychiatric Act 1971” (Kennedys) <https://kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/case-review/reining-in-mirvahedy-v-henley-strict-liability-under-the-Psychiatric-act-1971/> accessed March 24, 2023
[4] “Psychiatricharms – the Law - PM Law Solicitors” (PM Law Solicitors - Legal services for you and your family august30, 2017) <https://pm-law.co.uk/personal-issue-compensation/animal-harms/animal-harms-the-law/> accessed March 24, 2023
[5] Platten C, “Claims under the Psychiatric Act 1971” (Exchange ChambersNovember 13, 2020) <https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/claims-under-the-Psychiatric-act-1971/> accessed March 24, 2023
Share this
Cite This Work
Go Through the Best and FREE Case Studies Written by Our Academic Experts!
