Factual Situation : During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013. Alfa Water Co. purchased a boreholein 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, itemerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa’s borehole. Since the tannery opened in 1910, until 2007, the solvent itused had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by fork lift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence ofany spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance. Whether the Tannery owners are liable?

Question

Factual Situation : During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013.   Alfa Water Co. purchased a boreholein 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, itemerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa’s borehole.   Since the tannery opened in 1910, until 2007, the solvent itused had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by fork lift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence ofany spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance. Whether the Tannery owners are liable?

Examsnet · Accepted Answer

Correct Answer is :  No, the damage is too remote as it was not possible for the Tannery owners to reasonably foresee a spillage which would eventually lead to contamination of a water borehole so far away.

AILET 2018 BA LLB Question Paper with answer key for online practice

More Free Exams: