Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in proceedings brought by the plaintiff on the basis that a large proportion of its apples were caused to be damaged by an employee of the defendant, who had sprayed the neighbouring potato field during a windy day and which was blown by the wind onto the plaintiff's orchard, finds that the plaintiff is entitled to €88,000 for damage caused to his orchard, on the grounds that: (1) a causal link was established between the damage to the apples in the plaintiff's orchard and the spray drift of pesticide from the defendant's potato field; (2) the defendant acted negligently in spraying the herbicide in the windy conditions; (3) the harm caused to the plaintiff’s orchard was foreseeable, given the warnings on the herbicide product; (4) the plaintiff is entitled to damages for his loss; and (5) the conduct of the defendant gave rise to a liability on their part under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Plaintiff owner of fruit/vegetable farm - defendant leased field across road from plaintiff's farm - employee of defendant sprayed the potato field with a herbicide - plaintiff argues that the spray drift was blown by strong winds - damaged a large proportion of apples in plaintiff's orchards - apples could not be sold in shops - instead apples sold for processing and for cider - plaintiff alleges suffered a loss of profits of €88,000 - evidence that damaged apples more prevalent near the boundary with defendant's field - evidence that inner side of apples facing towards tree and covered by leafs were unaffected - defendant's case is that whilst there was damage - damage was evenly spread and pesticides would leave an uneven pattern of damage - defendant brought motion that plaintiff's action should be struck out on grounds delay and want of prosecution - motion heard after the conclusion of the evidence - defendant argues inordinate 12 year delay - prejudice to defendant by losing his primary scientific witness who retired - plaintiff offered to accept report into evidence - plaintiff pointed to returned witness still offering talks at garden parties - plaintiff submits no undue delay - brought well within 6 years statutory limit - that defendant delayed - court concludes very considerable delay, but notes extensive delay on part of defendant - court not satisfied defendant has suffered any tangible prejudice - court satisfied not appropriate to strike out plaintiff’s action - plaintiff took active steps - causation - liability - court satisfied that defendant liable at law for damage caused to the plaintiff’s apples - defendant acted negligently in spraying herbicide in windy conditions - harm caused was foreseeable - given warnings on herbicide product - court does not find nuisance - court finds liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - court considers quantum - court agrees with €9 per box figure provided by accountant called by plaintiff - figures quoted from Department of Agriculture website - from relevant period - court orders judgment in sum of €88,243.54.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now