This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Wringe v Cohen [1940] 1 KB 229

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:04

Judgement for the case Wringe v Cohen

Table Of Contents

  • Defendant’s house was in structural disrepair and it fell, causing damage to Plaintiff’s shop.

  • Plaintiff sued for negligence and nuisance.

  • CA upheld the claim in nuisance. 

Atkinson J

if, owing to want of repair, premises on a highway become dangerous and, therefore, a nuisance, and a passer-by or an adjoining owner suffers damage by their collapse, the occupier, or the owner if he has undertaken the duty of repair, is answerable whether he knew or ought to have known of the danger or not.

  • However:

if the nuisance is created by the act of a trespasser, or by a secret and unobservable operation of nature, such as a subsidence under or near the foundations of the premises, neither an occupier nor an owner responsible for repair is answerable, unless with knowledge or means of knowledge he allows the danger to continue.

 ----

NB the Corgy Group Litigation established that personal injury is compensable under public nuisance. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Wringe v Cohen

Tort Law Notes
1,070 total pages
847 purchased

Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Tort LawNuisance Notes (70 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Tort Law Notes
1,070 total pages
847 purchased

Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...