Expanding liability through fault

Reliance on the standard of reasonable conduct in the situation (a standard similar to that of fault) of the neighbour increased the scope of his liability in two cases. First ,where the neighbour would be liable where he caused harm by omitting to do something which would prevent harm to the claimant. For example, in Leakey (1980), the English Court of Appeal believed that the National Trust, a large organisation, should have intervened to prevent subsidence of a hill which damaged its neighbour’s land. “The defendant’s duty is to do that which it is reasonable for him to do. The criteria of reasonableness include, in respect of a duty of this nature, the factor of what the particular man – not the average man – can be expected to do.” But before a neighbour can be expected to act, he needs to know that there is a hazard and that it could harm the neighbour.

Secondly, the interests not only of landowners, who had property rights, but other people on the land could be protected by giving compensation.

I've heard of stinking your neighbours out, but this is ridiculous.