Public Nuisance Essay

Public nuisance can be defined as an act or omission which affect towards a public at large on the convenience and comfort of their rights (Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169). Here, we need to distinguish whether the act of busking is considered as public nuisance. This was re-affirmed in case of case of Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Boey Siew Than & Ors [1978] 2 MLJ 156, the court was of the view that nuisance is considered as public nuisance if it affects the reasonable comfort class of society. Busking is part of performance of music in an open place and according to s.2 of the Entertaiment (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Act 1992, performances of music can be defined as part of the entertainment. Section 4 of the

In order for the plaintiff to prove that you had acted negligently in uploading the video and caused injuries towards the plaintiff, firstly it is important for them to prove that you had violated your duty of reasonable care. The general duty of care principle is laid down in a case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. In this case the court ruled that the test in ascertaining the existence of a duty of care of neighbour principle where defendants must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that they can reasonably foresee would likely to injure their neighbour. Furthermore, as stated in the case of Caparo Industries v Dickman [1989] 2 WLR 790, a duty of care may be held exist when the damage is reasonably foreseeable and there is a close and direct relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant. In relation to the video does not contain the warning it can be classify as you have the duty to warn the viewer or to put disclaimer not to imitate the action at home or without proper equipment. However, as discussed in the case of Shirley DeFilippo v National Broadcasting Co. Inc. 446 A.2d 1036 (1982) the court held the defendant is not liable as though the stunt man repeatedly warned the viewer do not try the act but the act of a child to imitate is not foreseeable as a result causing the 13 year old boy to death. (tlg paraphrase pls). Similarly in the case of Walt Disney Productions Inc v Shannon, 247 Ga. 402, 276 S.E 2d 580 (1981) the court held the defendant not liable as the viewer is a child and repeated what he seen on the television which caused injury to