|
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather
plc ((1994) 2 AC 264, 306) [1994] 2 WLR 53 - (Applied) -
Nuisance
Where the company sought damages against a tannery
which had permitted perchloroethane to percolate into the aquifer,
thereby rendering the water unusable for the purposes of public
supply;
The Decision
At first instance it was found that Eastern
Counties Leather plc could not have foreseen this type of damage
and, therefore, disallowed the claims in nuisance and negligence.
Further, it was found that the actions of Eastern Counties Leather
plc constituted a natural use of the land and consequently dismissed
the claim based on the rule in
Rylands v.
Fletcher.
Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. successfully appealed. Eastern Counties
Leather plc then appealed to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords unanimously found that Eastern Counties Leather
plc was not liable for the water contamination. The main issue was
whether the foreseeability of the damage suffered by Cambridge Water
Co. was relevant to a claim under the rule in
Rylands v.
Fletcher. The Lords accepted the original finding that a
reasonable supervisor employed by Eastern Counties Leather plc would
not have foreseen that the solvent would leak from the tannery
floors down into the water source. It was thought at the time that
any spilt solvent would evaporate and that the only foreseeable risk
was that if large quantities were spilt, someone might be overcome
by the vapour.
The Facts
Cambridge Water Co. purchased a borehole in 1976 to
extract water to supply to the public. In 1983 it tested the water
to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and
discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent.
On investigation, it emerged that the solvent came from the Eastern
Counties Leather plc tannery, about 1.3 miles from the borehole.
Since the tannery opened in 1879 until 1976, the solvent it used had
been delivered in 40 gallon drums which were transported by fork
lift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 1976, solvents had
been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the
tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the
tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been
contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Cambridge
Water Co. claimed damages against Eastern Counties Leather plc
alternatively for negligence, nuisance and under the rule in
Rylands v.
Fletcher.
|