Cound v. BPM Construction Ltd.

Cound v. BPM Construction Ltd.

Claim dismissed because claimants failed to prove defendant knew or ought to have known the tree was dangerous; there was no evidence of disease or warning signs and partial clearing did not alone establish negligence; nuisance and Rylands principles did not apply on these facts.

Citation
2008 NSSM 33
Parties
Claimant: Martin Cound; Claimant: Laura Cound; Defendant: BPM Construction Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Nuisance, Rylands V. Fletcher (strict Liability for Escape), Tree Fall/property Damage
Source Language
English
Tort Property Negligence Nuisance Rylands V. Fletcher (strict Liability for Escape) Tree Fall/property Damage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Cound

Claimant

Laura Cound

Claimant

BPM Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant was negligent in maintaining trees adjacent to claimant's property
  2. 2 Whether defendant's use of land amounted to nuisance
  3. 3 Whether Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability applies to a falling tree

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because claimants failed to prove defendant knew or ought to have known the tree was dangerous; there was no evidence of disease or warning signs and partial clearing did not alone establish negligence; nuisance and Rylands principles did not apply on these facts.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed