What is the test for finding Inco liable under private nuisance or the rule in Rylands v Fletcher v Fletcher?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Smith v. Inco Limited, 2011 ONCA 628 (CanLII):
With respect to the careful and thoughtful reasons of the trial judge, we hold that he erred in finding Inco liable under either private nuisance or the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. In any event, for the reasons we will develop in the next part of these reasons, even if either or both causes of action survive, the claimants failed to prove damages, an essential component of both causes of action. [page354] (D) Damages
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
When will the court make a finding of fact or finding of not finding fact in a personal injury case? (Ontario, Canada)
When will the court grant relief under the Fletcher doctrine under the Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the effect of Rylands v Fletcher v Fletcher on the use of real property? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there a cause of action in negligence, nuisance or under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
Can Inco be held liable under Rylands v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a single isolated escape a prerequisite for a finding of strict liability pursuant to the Rylands v Fletcher doctrine? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for finding a plaintiff liable for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident? (Ontario, Canada)
Is North American Produce liable or penally liable for the death of a pallet truck driver? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for finding a director personally liable for oppression? (Ontario, Canada)
