Comparative Legal History
Comparative Legal History
Tutorial 4/Assignment 2
Caron Turner (TRNCAR011)
Question One:
The main issue in this scenario is whether Jacob has a remedy for the damage done to his land caused by the rainwater runoff from the neighbouring restaurant’s sculpture.
Roman Law:
In Roman law, there is the actio aquae pluviae arcendae, which imposed liability for damage produced by rainwater.[1] The defendant had to have built a structure that caused the rainwater to damage the plaintiff’s land. The remedy was for the defendant to remove the structure causing harm and pay damages to the plaintiff. In Jacob’s situation this action would apply because damages resulted from rainwater runoff from the sculpture. Hence Jacob would receive damages from his neighbours as well as ensure the sculpture’s removal.
English Law:
In English Law, there is private nuisance, which is “the unreasonable and unjustified intervention by the defendant in the use of his land with the plaintiff’s right to enjoy his property.”[2] The ways judges decide whether an act constitutes a nuisance are by looking at the duration, extent and type of disturbance, the type of neighbourhood, the motivation and offensiveness. The remedy for an action of nuisance is either an injunction or a payment of damages.[3] In this case the type and the extent of disturbance must be viewed. Flooding a neighbours land constitutes a nuisance according to Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan.[4] Since Jacob’s land was damaged by the rainwater runoff that caused erosion, making it difficult to plant his vineyard, he would use the remedy of claiming for damages from the restaurant.
Question Two:
Here, there are two issues requiring remedies: the disturbances from the neon sign, movement of club patrons and the noise and the unsavoury people that the club attracts because of the nature of the business.
Roman Law:
Roman Law has no remedies for the issues Michaela is facing due to Rebels Inc. Roman society
Tutorial 4/Assignment 2
Caron Turner (TRNCAR011)
Question One:
The main issue in this scenario is whether Jacob has a remedy for the damage done to his land caused by the rainwater runoff from the neighbouring restaurant’s sculpture.
Roman Law:
In Roman law, there is the actio aquae pluviae arcendae, which imposed liability for damage produced by rainwater.[1] The defendant had to have built a structure that caused the rainwater to damage the plaintiff’s land. The remedy was for the defendant to remove the structure causing harm and pay damages to the plaintiff. In Jacob’s situation this action would apply because damages resulted from rainwater runoff from the sculpture. Hence Jacob would receive damages from his neighbours as well as ensure the sculpture’s removal.
English Law:
In English Law, there is private nuisance, which is “the unreasonable and unjustified intervention by the defendant in the use of his land with the plaintiff’s right to enjoy his property.”[2] The ways judges decide whether an act constitutes a nuisance are by looking at the duration, extent and type of disturbance, the type of neighbourhood, the motivation and offensiveness. The remedy for an action of nuisance is either an injunction or a payment of damages.[3] In this case the type and the extent of disturbance must be viewed. Flooding a neighbours land constitutes a nuisance according to Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan.[4] Since Jacob’s land was damaged by the rainwater runoff that caused erosion, making it difficult to plant his vineyard, he would use the remedy of claiming for damages from the restaurant.
Question Two:
Here, there are two issues requiring remedies: the disturbances from the neon sign, movement of club patrons and the noise and the unsavoury people that the club attracts because of the nature of the business.
Roman Law:
Roman Law has no remedies for the issues Michaela is facing due to Rebels Inc. Roman society