- Case indexes > Environmental > Accidents and emergencies
- Case indexes > Environmental > Accidents and emergencies > Natural disasters
- Case indexes > Environmental > Concepts and principles
- Case indexes > Environmental > Concepts and principles > Environmental duties
- Case indexes > Environmental > Waste and pollution > Hazardous substances
- Case indexes > Environmental > Waste and pollution > Waste management
- Case indexes > Commercial > Contract Law > Termination of Contract > Notice of Termination of Contract
- Case summary
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in this case was that the defendant’s negligent and faulty roofing resulted in a flood that consequently damaged the plaintiff’s restaurant. The parties’ properties were located on a steep hill and shared a boundary. It was alleged that, on account of the defendant’s failure maintain a proper gutter, water was discharged from its roof onto the plaintiff’s property resulting in a flood. The defendant’s only defense was that there was no proof that the water that flowed towards the plaintiff’s restaurant came from the defendant’s restaurant.
The court held that since the onus of proof was on a balance of probability, the plaintiff’s case was clear. The evidence showed that a significant amount of water was discharged from the defendant’s roof due to its ill-fitted gutter towards the plaintiff’s house, which would have otherwise been channeled into a catch pit. The court reasoned that the presumption that the defendant’s poorly fixed gutter led to the flood was proved when soon after the defendant repaired its gutters the floods did not reoccur despite heavy rainfalls in following seasons. The court thus concluded that the defendant’s poorly fitted roofing contributed to the floods. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim succeeded.
This document is 519.8 KB. Do you want to load it?