Abstract
AbstractThe paper critically examines the consensus among tort scholars that an injured view can never be actionable in nuisance. The consensus, it is argued, is based on a problematic understanding of the permanence of early modern nuisance authority, and a neglect of modernisation in the definition of actionable injury in the nineteenth century, in response to industrialisation, urbanisation and, crucially, suburbanisation. David Sugarman's ‘textbook tradition’ provides a valuable disciplinary explanation for the mismatch between scholarly portrayals of doctrine and authoritative judicial formulations in decided cases.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference62 articles.
1. Tort interacting with regulatory law;Pontin;Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly,2000
2. 7 The Aims of the Law of Tort*
3. A new history of waste law: how a misunderstood doctrine shaped ideas about the transformation of law;Fraley;Marquette Law Review,2017
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献