CORRESPONDENCE
| Date | 01 May 1971 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1971.tb02333.x |
| Published date | 01 May 1971 |
CORRESPONDENCE
THE
EDITOR,
The Modern Law ReZn’ew,
Dear
Sir,
I
would like to have an opportunity of replying to some of the comrnenis
made by Miss Ganz
in
her review
of
the
second edition
of
my book,
The
Law
of
Tort in Local Government,
which appeared in
(1970)
33
M.L.R.
696-661!9.
My principal observation is that although Miss Ganz
states
that my “book
lives
up
to its title” she has confined her review of it
to
certain
aspexts
of
the law relating to negligence. There are no references at
all
to any of thie
other
parts
of
my
book
relating
to
defamatiion, trespass, nuisance, highways,
etc., nor to remedies apart from the matter
of
compensation to which
I
shall refer later. This limitation, in my opinion, gives
a
misleading impres-
sion of
the
scope of my boook.
As
to my failure to analyse, discuss
or
evaluate cases, there seems
to
me
to be
a
distinction between the omission to criticise cases which
is
a
matter
entirely within the discretion of the author having regard
to
the type of
book which he intends to write and the omission
to
refer to cases which
overrule
or
distinguish prior cases which is
a
matter
of
error in law.
T~LIS
with regard to the three cases which Miss Ganz has selected for comment,
East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board
v.
Kent
falls into the former category
but
Ball
v.
L.C.C.
and
Dunne
v.
North Western Bas Board
come within tlhe
latter
one.
Ball
v.
L.C.C.
was cited to illustrate the point
that
local authorities are
under no greater liability in negligence for defective apparatus
in
houses
maintained by them than are private landlords (Singleton
L.J.
at
p.
178
as
to the practice
of
local authorities installing boilers in their houses). Thiu
particular point was not
in
issue in
A.
C.
Billings
v.
Riden
which case over-
ruled only the part of the decision in Ball
v.
L.C.C.
relating
to
contractual
relationship
in
negligence (See
A.
C.
Billings
v.
Riden,
Lord Reid
at
p.
263
and Lord Soniervell
at
p.
2G4).
With regard
to
Dunne
v.
North Western
Gas
Board,
I
have stated that this case distinguished
Mitford
&
Co. Ltd.
v.
Manchester Corporation
at
p.
47
and
Chafing Cross Electricity Supply
C‘o.
v.
Hydraulic Power
Co.
at
p.
57,
note
4,
but applied
Green
v.
Chelsea Water-
works
Co.
at
p.
GO,
note
6;
points of practical importance apparently not
appreciated by Miss Ganz.
Finally,
a
reference to my preface
at
p.
vi
will
show that
I
did not intend
to comment on the defects in this field of law because the book covers
SO
many grounds
of
liability
in
tort,
a
limitation which may not have been
noticed by
Miss
Ganz.
Obviously, general problems of public law
such
as tlhe
payment of Compensation by
“
public authorities
’’
for injury resulting from
“the performance of their functions regardless of fault”
as
suggested by
Miss
Ganz
as
a
matter for discussion, are outside the scope of my
boadr.
Local authorities, of course, have certain statutory powers of paying
com-
pensation
for
damage resulting from the exercise of such powers
0s
explainled
where relevant,
for
instance,
at
page
247
and pages
249
et
seq.,
in
my book.
Yours
faithfully,
MARY
BELL
CAIRNS.
University
of
Reale.
860
To continue reading
Request your trial