My wall by Angel Holder https://padlet.com/angelsweetnessholder/gu5yyzhh5tvb Made with wonder en-us 2018-02-17 03:40:23 UTC 2025-10-05 19:39:55 UTC hello@padlet.com Plaintiff occupied a house in Rainville Road, Fulham, which was a road zoned for residential purposes. Defendants, Esso Petroleum Co Ltd operated an oil distributing depot at premises adjoining Rainville Road which were situated in an area zoned for industrial purposes. In this industrial area there were other premises dealing with oil. Defendants’ depot dealt with fuel oil in its light, medium and heavy grades, the oil being pumped from the river tankers on to the depot and from the depot into road tankers. It was necessary to heat the medium and heavy grades of oil for the purpose of pumping them and these grades were kept hot throughout their transportation, including the time while they were at the depot. The through-put of oil at the depot had increased from 30,414,000 gallons in 1953 to 56,607,000 gallons in 1957. In 1956 night shift working was reintroduced. On the depot and opposite to plaintiff’s house there was a boilerhouse with two boilers heated by burning oil and used for producing steam to heat the fuel oil. Two metal chimneys projected from the roof of the boilerhouse. From these chimneys acid smuts containing sulphate were emitted and were visible falling outside plaintiff’s house. There was proof that the smuts had damaged clothes hung out to dry in the garden of plaintiff’s house and also paintwork of plaintiff’s car which he kept on the highway outside the door of his house. The depot emitted a pungent and nauseating smell of oil which went beyond a background smell and was more than would affect a sensitive person but plaintiff had not suffered any injury to health from the smell. During the night there was noise from the boilers which at its peak caused windows and doors in plaintiff’s house to vibrate and prevented plaintiff sleeping. Defendants had attempted to reduce this noise by soundproofing the walls of the boilerhouse but it remained and was more than trivial. Further, during the night shift from 10 pm to 6 am there was noise from road tankers which arrived at and left the depot at points close to plaintiff’s house. The tankers were enormous vehicles and made a very loud noise. Up to 15 tankers came to and left the depot at different times during the night shift and sometimes up to four tankers arrived or left together. The noise from the tankers was made partly in the public highway outside the depot, as they manoeuvred on entering or leaving the depot, and partly in the depot itself. In an action by plaintiff for nuisance by acid smuts, smell and noise: Held defendants were liable to plaintiff in the following respect and on the following grounds – (1) for the emission of acid smuts – (a) under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher LR 3 HL 330, in respects of the damage to clothing on plaintiff’s land and of the damage to his car while it was on the public highway since in both cases the damage was caused by the escape from defendants’ premises of a harmful substance, viz, noxious acid smuts; (b) as a private nuisance in respect of damage to the clothes since the damage was a material injury to plaintiff’s property resulting from trade carried on by defendants in neighbouring property; (c) as a public nuisance in respect of which plaintiff has suffered special damage by reason of the action of the noxious smuts on his car on the public highway; (2) in respect of nuisance by smell because the smell emanating from defendants’ premises amounted to a private nuisance, notwithstanding that there was no proof of injury to plaintiff’s health, for injury to health was not a necessary ingredient in the cause of action for nuisance by smell; (3) in respect of a private nuisance by noise from the boilers and the road tankers when in the depot, in either instance at night, because the noise was an inconvenience which materially interfered with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence according to plain, sober and simple notions among ordinary people, such as plaintiff living in this part of Fulham; (4) for the noise from road tankers made at night on the public highway – (a) as a public nuisance, since the concentration of moving vehicles in a small area of the public highway, viz, outside the depot, was an unreasonable user of the highway and caused special damage to plaintiff whom it affected more than the ordinary members of the public; (b) as a private nuisance, since the noise was directly related to the operation of the depot and was not a prerequisite of private nuisance that the matter complained of emanated from defendants’ land so long as it affected plaintiff’s property, and in the present case the noise from the highway materially interfered with plaintiff’s enjoyment of his house. angelsweetnessholder https://padlet.com/angelsweetnessholder/gu5yyzhh5tvb/wish/246367291 Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co ltd.]]> 2018-03-27 06:28:04 UTC https://padlet.com/angelsweetnessholder/gu5yyzhh5tvb/wish/246367291