— Natural Hazards and the Law

The Place of Private Nuisance in a Modern Law of Torts

The Cambridge Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s000819730010529x ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 48 (2) ◽

pp. 214-242 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Conor Gearty

Keyword(s):

Natural Hazards ◽

Noise Pollution ◽

Convincing Evidence ◽

Atmospheric Water ◽

Public And Private ◽

Sense Of Direction ◽

Public Nuisance ◽

The Subject ◽

The Law ◽

Law Reports

It is forty years since Professor Newark wrote despairingly of nuisance that “the subject as commonly taught comprises a mass of material which proves so intractable to definition and analysis that it immediately betrays its mongrel origins.” The “truest dictum in the books” was that of Erle C.J., who had once said in answer to the question, what is a nuisance?, that it was “immersed in undefined uncertainty.” Little has changed since 1949. Public and private nuisance still face life together in the textbooks, the universities and the law reports, despite the convincing evidence all round, much of it gathered in Newark's article, that they have little in common except the accident of sharing the same name. Making hoax bomb calls, obstructing the highway and holding a badly organised pop festival are as vulnerable to a public nuisance action as are the more traditional occurrences of special damage from atmospheric, water and noise pollution. Private nuisance has, if anything, become even more confused and confusing. Its chapter lies neglected in the standard works, little changed over the years, its modest message overwhelmed by the excitements to be found elsewhere in tort. Any sense of direction which may have existed in the old days is long gone. The action now encompasses not only smelly oil depots, noisy speedboats and the like but also dangerous natural hazards on the land and the only slightly less natural “user of premises for prostitution and the perambulations of the prostitutes and their customers.” Sometimes negligence is essential to liability, sometimes it is quite irrelevant.

Download Full-text

Ethical Challenges: Less About Moral Wrongdoing and More About Communication Breakdown

Perspectives on Gerontology ◽

10.1044/gero20.3.72 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 20 (3) ◽

pp. 72-84 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Paula Leslie ◽

Mary Casper

Keyword(s):

Ethical Challenges ◽

Speech Language Pathology ◽

Thickened Liquids ◽

Communication Breakdown ◽

Professional Duty ◽

Language Pathology ◽

The Law ◽

Personal Case

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.

Download Full-text