私人滋扰:英国最高法院的观点

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2023-12-08 DOI:10.1515/jtl-2023-0043
Roderick Bagshaw
{"title":"私人滋扰:英国最高法院的观点","authors":"Roderick Bagshaw","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2023-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, required the UK Supreme Court to resolve claims that by operating an open-air terrace, from which visitors could enjoy a high-level view of London, the defendants were committing the tort of private nuisance against the owners of nearby luxury flats. The Court decided that the intrusive staring into the flats by visitors to the terrace could be a form of private nuisance, but split as to whether the tort was being committed; a minority thought that it would be necessary to take account of the claimants’ flats being glass-walled, and consequently unusually vulnerable to ocular intrusion, and the possibility of the claimants mitigating their discomfort by using blinds, whilst the majority insisted that it was straightforward to hold the defendants liable. This article concentrates on the majority’s re-statement of the basic test for liability in private nuisance, in particular their shift from an approach that assesses the “reasonableness” (or otherwise) of the defendant’s activity to one that relies heavily on a distinction between “common and ordinary” and “special and unusual” uses of land. It concludes that several key elements in the re-statement will require further elucidation, and that the key distinction does not reflect the values that its proponents hoped that it would.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"59 30","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View\",\"authors\":\"Roderick Bagshaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jtl-2023-0043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, required the UK Supreme Court to resolve claims that by operating an open-air terrace, from which visitors could enjoy a high-level view of London, the defendants were committing the tort of private nuisance against the owners of nearby luxury flats. The Court decided that the intrusive staring into the flats by visitors to the terrace could be a form of private nuisance, but split as to whether the tort was being committed; a minority thought that it would be necessary to take account of the claimants’ flats being glass-walled, and consequently unusually vulnerable to ocular intrusion, and the possibility of the claimants mitigating their discomfort by using blinds, whilst the majority insisted that it was straightforward to hold the defendants liable. This article concentrates on the majority’s re-statement of the basic test for liability in private nuisance, in particular their shift from an approach that assesses the “reasonableness” (or otherwise) of the defendant’s activity to one that relies heavily on a distinction between “common and ordinary” and “special and unusual” uses of land. It concludes that several key elements in the re-statement will require further elucidation, and that the key distinction does not reflect the values that its proponents hoped that it would.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"volume\":\"59 30\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0043\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tort Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

费恩诉泰特美术馆董事会一案,要求英国最高法院裁决被告通过经营露天露台,让游客可以从高处欣赏伦敦的景色,对附近豪华公寓的业主构成私人滋扰侵权。法院裁定,游客在露台上侵入性地盯着公寓可能是一种私人滋扰,但对于是否构成侵权行为存在分歧;少数人认为有必要考虑到索赔人的公寓是玻璃墙,因此特别容易受到视觉干扰,以及索赔人通过使用百叶窗来减轻他们的不适的可能性,而大多数人坚持认为追究被告的责任是直截了当地的。本文集中讨论多数人对私人妨害责任的基本测试的重新陈述,特别是他们从评估被告活动的“合理性”(或其他)的方法转变为严重依赖于区分“普通和普通”以及“特殊和不寻常”土地用途的方法。它的结论是,重述中的几个关键因素需要进一步阐明,关键的区别并没有反映其支持者所希望的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View
Abstract Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, required the UK Supreme Court to resolve claims that by operating an open-air terrace, from which visitors could enjoy a high-level view of London, the defendants were committing the tort of private nuisance against the owners of nearby luxury flats. The Court decided that the intrusive staring into the flats by visitors to the terrace could be a form of private nuisance, but split as to whether the tort was being committed; a minority thought that it would be necessary to take account of the claimants’ flats being glass-walled, and consequently unusually vulnerable to ocular intrusion, and the possibility of the claimants mitigating their discomfort by using blinds, whilst the majority insisted that it was straightforward to hold the defendants liable. This article concentrates on the majority’s re-statement of the basic test for liability in private nuisance, in particular their shift from an approach that assesses the “reasonableness” (or otherwise) of the defendant’s activity to one that relies heavily on a distinction between “common and ordinary” and “special and unusual” uses of land. It concludes that several key elements in the re-statement will require further elucidation, and that the key distinction does not reflect the values that its proponents hoped that it would.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Tort Law
Journal of Tort Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of Tort Law aims to be the premier publisher of original articles about tort law. JTL is committed to methodological pluralism. The only peer-reviewed academic journal in the U.S. devoted to tort law, the Journal of Tort Law publishes cutting-edge scholarship in tort theory and jurisprudence from a range of interdisciplinary perspectives: comparative, doctrinal, economic, empirical, historical, philosophical, and policy-oriented. Founded by Jules Coleman (Yale) and some of the world''s most prominent tort scholars from the Harvard, Fordham, NYU, Yale, and University of Haifa law faculties, the journal is the premier source for original articles about tort law and jurisprudence.
期刊最新文献
Situating Tort Law Within a Web of Institutions: Insights for the Age of Artificial Intelligence Against Harm: Keating on the Soul of Tort Law What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1