TRESPASS TO PERSON

Trespass to Person



Trespass to Person

Introduction

There are nuisance in our environment that obstructs the daily activities of people whether at home or in the workplace. According to (2007) there are two kinds of nuisance in the environment and these are the public and private nuisance. This paper examines the case of Production team, a reasonable discussion of the principles will be done wherein there is a clear identification and explanation of legal problems.

Case Analysis

A private nuisance is the “unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it,” usually private nuisance can be divided into two categories and these are the deeds involving damage to the physical land of the claimant and the deeds involving obstruction with the claimant's utilisation or enjoyment of the land (and , 2003). On the other hand, public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right to the general public,” this type of nuisance covers various crimes that may threaten the safety, health, comfort or welfare of the general public (, 2007). Trespass to another land means “directly entering upon land, or remaining upon land, or placing or projecting any object upon land in the possession of the claimant, in each case without unlawful justification” (, 2005).

The defendant Production team owned and operated a manufacturing plant of pre-cast concrete unites on High field roads in the Edward's Industrial Estate. The company is answerable to the requirement of the United Kingdom environmental statutes. Production team was recently successful in wining contracts which results to the round the clock operations of the factory. As a result of the operations, the factory of Production team discharges the by product of the manufacturing process which have negative impact on the health of Amy, Brian and Carol, as well as the environment of the community. The management of Production team filed a suit to the Amy, Brian and Carol, claiming damages to property and trespass. The company based their claims on the theories of trespass and private nuisance. On the other hand, Amy, Brian and Carol argued that the company is also liable for the damages in their properties, health and environment.

Production team argued that the claims of Amy, Brian and Carol must be dismissed because the family did not support any evidences that pointed out that the factory is the main reason why there are damages to their environment, property and health. In addition, Amy, Brian and Carol was the only one who filed a suit against the company therefore the amount of damages that is supposed to be the factory's fault is only minimal.

Trespass is the wrongful interference in an unauthorised property of another person (, 2002). The company is claiming that Wally trespassed the in the premises of the management office of the factory because he did not ask any permission or appointment from the manager or the secretary. The court could observe that Wally was liable for trespassing because he entered the property of the ...