Introduction
I have been asked to advise Jim, Tom and Mary as to what possible remedies they have in their current dilemma with the private school that their properties adjoin to. I will be addressing the law of trespass and the law of nuisance in my opinion to them.
Trespassing
‘A trespass is an unjustified, direct interference with land in the possession of another and is actionable per se without proof of actual damage. ’ In the case Browns v Dunsmuir, it explains that “trespass to land occurs when a person without justification causes anything to enter upon land which is in the possession of another. The tort is actionable without proof of loss.”
1. Have the people that parked their cars on and walked through Jim, Tom and Mary’s
…show more content…
These lights have direct interference with the land as they are in the airspace. Erecting a permanent structure that overhangs the plantiffs land constitutes trespass. In Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Company, an advertising board projected eight inches into the plaintiff’s property, there was a madatory injuction and the sign owner had to remove it as the court held that any structure that overhangs into a neighbouring airspace constitutes trespass. It was also considered trespass even though there was no harm or nuisance in it being there. This would be the best option for the three property owners, to apply for a mandatory injunction. As for Jim and the light and wires that are actually on his land, this is called an encroachment. The best thing to do in this situation is to talk with the school and see wether it can be removed properly or if that will be too costly for them they could also provide damages to Jim, and compensate him for the part of the land that they are using and he no longer has access …show more content…
The injunction was that Mr Greenwood had to install blinds in the offices instead of removing his $20,000 glass veranda. I think that the courts would find that Jim, Tom and Mary also have a claim in nuisance however the outcome might be slightly more difficult. This is because they all most likely already have blinds or curtains in both their living rooms and their bedrooms. So another remedy would have to be thought of in order to solve this problem, as the school needs the floodlights on the fields to keep the children safe and to make trainings possible.
3. Does the litter being dropped on their properties constitute private nuisance?
The question that is to be asked here is whether or not rubbish being dropped on the properties, causes harm or damage, which it needs to, to be able to equate to nuisance. In Toms case, his elderly parents find the litter distressing, but I think the courts would find that the overall damage and harm done is not enough. There is also no way to tell whether the students have dropped it or whether the wind has simply blown it onto their properties.
Public
(Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The judges in this case needed to determine of Elmwood Park Board of Education was at all responsible for this act due to lack of supervision of Bracigliano (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The facts of the case explain that Bracigliano obstructed views into his office as soon as he became the principal in 1982, which was against a New Jersey law that required every room used by school staff to have a view into it (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). During his tenure as principal a state inspector ordered that the covering be removed, which it was, but only temporarily (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The School Board was aware that the covering was ordered to be removed by the state inspector, but they never verified that it had in fact been removed (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). Staff members were also aware that students frequently visited Bracigliano’s office, the door was locked, and pictures were taken when the students were in there (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). Several staff members also witnessed Bracigliano doing inappropriate things to students, but they were unaware of the procedure to report these acts and, therefore, the acts went unreported to Bracigliano’s superiors (Frugis v.
The students’ parents believed the issue was still unresolved so they hired attorneys to try the case in court. The lawsuit asked for two things; the first was an injunction to stop the school from enforcing the rule prohibiting the black armbands. They had also requested nominal damages which was a small amount of money sought for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. In this case, nominal damages equaled one dollar (Farish, 33). The first trial took place in July 1966 and was tried by only a judge. There was no jury involved (Farish, 38). Five weeks later the judge returned with his decision; the plaintiff’s request for injunction and nominal damages was denied. The Tinkers were still not satisfied with the outcome and decided to appeal to the next higher court which was the Eighth Circuit. Meanwhile back in Des Moines, Iowa the community reacted angrily to the act of the students while the trial was taking places. Mary Beth Tinker recalls red paint being thrown at the Tinker residence and threatening phone calls (Farish, 41). When the trail in the Eighth Circuit had finally concluded, it had ruled that the Tinkers had lost yet again. The case was then taken to Supreme Court after careful consideration by both sides’
The CA Civil Code §3479 defines a nuisance as anything but not limited to, that which is indecent or offensive to the senses. The Los Lobos Landfill operations have resulted in thousands of community complaints. Additionally, there are odors that are produced from the composting. This odor is offensive to the local community's sense of smell.
1. The plaintiff, Nguyen, issued proceedings claiming damages for a personal injury at a fashion parade owned and occupied by the second defendant, City of Charles Sturt. Statement of claim asserted that a duty of care was owed by the second defendant to the plaintiff on the basis that the second defendant as owner and occupier of the hall, hired the hall to the organiser who failed to provide satisfactory security. Second defendant applied for an order to strike out the State of claim made by the plaintiff, on the foundation that failed to relate any cause of action against the second defendant. The issue the court has to decide is whether the claim pleaded by the plaintiff against the second defendant has any plausible basis or arguable cause of action in negligence, therefore whether it is arguable that a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff by the second defendant to ensure his safety and security at this fashion parade hired by the first defendant, Hiotis.
To own land, that is the privilege of whom? To Andrew Jackson the Cherokees current homesteads where on his country’s land. For whatever reason at that time some people living in America weren’t treated as good as there white counterparts. Meanwhile the Cherokees principal chief John Ross felt like that land belonged to his people. If you want to get technical he was speaking on the behalf of a tribe that made up a mere one-eighth of his ancestry. Not exactly a full blooded leader. He also was one of the main reason the “trail of tears” was as hostile and brutal as it was on his people. Its ironic, even as hard as Jackson pushed and deceived the Cherokee, the Cherokee people in turn pushed back, but past the point of being rational.
The other owners in the neighborhood white , agreed to restrict colored people from buying houses in the neighborhood. Shelley had no knowledge of what the owners had done. He was not pleased with their ignorance.The circuit court declined to enforce the agreement on the basis that not all of the property owners had signed the covenant. Then Shelley appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which had no experience of a case like this before. The final decision was that any court may not constitutionally enforce a "restrictive covenant" which she prevents people of any particular race from buying
What are the steps to due process? What significance are the court cases Goss v. Lopez and Dixon v. Alabama in maintaining a well-ordered school?
The school is to protect the students from any wrong doing towards them. Such act, parents, school official and other authorities will be contacted. The case in Oakland County MI, opens many eyes for students and parents. The school board has responsibility to report such harm. This is not taken lightly, serious offense. Students could face years in prison, or face felonies.
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.
A landowner has a right to file a case against encroachment of property. For example, if a person X parks his/ her car in the parking lot of person Y then person Y can file a case against person X under the encroachment law. There are many reason for encroachment such as inaccurate survey, no boundaries, etc.
“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”
Alexander, D. & Alexander, K. (2009). The Law of Schools, Students and Teachers in a Nut
The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.
When there is a breach of duty, to look after your neighbour, the injured plaintiffs are likely to launch a claim for damages, in order to restore themselves back to the position they were in prior to the tort. Within the scenario, there appears to be several breaches. Each breach will be discussed in terms of what can be claimed and how successful each of the four claims are.
Imagine you are wearing your brand new t-shirt of your favorite band or singer. Pretty cool right? Well now you are not allowed to wear it because it is said to be disruptive and cause problems. In Hamilton Middle School a student named Ben was suspended for just that. There is a new rule stating that students are not allowed to wear any types of band t-shirts because of they are causing problems amongst the students that attend the same school. These problems are said to include the disruption of the learning environment. In addition, the shirts supposedly cause arguments and other problems. With that being said, the student should not have been suspended because his shirt is not breaking those rules.