The first one that pops into my head is British Celanese v Hunt [1969] 1 W.L.R. 959 per Lawton J

*969

...Most nuisances do arise from a long continuing condition; and many isolated happenings do not constitute a nuisance. It is, however, clear from the authorities that an isolated happening by itself can create an actionable nuisance. Such an authority is Midwood & Co. Ltd. v. Manchester Corporation [1905] 2 K.B. 597 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=IFA777081E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9>, where an electric main installed by the defendants fused. This caused an explosion and a fire whereby the plaintiffs's goods were damaged. The Court of Appeal held that the defendants were liable, all the Lords Justices being of the opinion that they had caused a nuisance. The explosion in that case arose out of the condition of the electric main: the “flash over” in this case was caused by the way in which the defendants stored their metal foil, whereby those in the neighbourhood were exposed to the risk of having their electric power cut off. I am satisfied that the law is correctly stated in /Winfield on Tort /, 8th ed. at p. 364: “When the nuisance is the escape of tangible things which damage the plaintiff in the enjoyment of his property, there is no rule that he cannot sue for the first escape.” Anyway, in this case, the alleged happening of December 7, 1964, was not the first escape: there is said to have been one in 1961.


The plaintiff manufacturers claimed damages against the defendants, manufacturers of electrical components, alleging by their statement of claim that in December, 1964, metal foil strips blown from the defendants's factory premises on the same industrial estate as the plaintiffs's factory came into contact with an electricity sub-station on the estate, causing a power failure which brought the plaintiffs's machines to a halt; and that as a result certain materials in their machines solidified, the machines had to be cleaned before production could restart, materials and time were wasted and production lost. The electric sub-station, which included 33 kilowatt bus bars standing in the open air, lay 120 yards from the defendants's factory. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants knew or ought to have known that the likely consequences of allowing their metal foil to escape would be for a strip to be blown against more than one of the bus bars, thereby causing a flash-over resulting in a power failure for a similar flash-over had occurred three years previously owing to the escape of the defendants's foil, and the latter had received a warning letter from the electricity board. The plaintiffs claimed damages under each of the four heads: on the basis of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I913A6901E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9>, in negligence; for nuisance and for public nuisance. The defendants contended that nothing more than a damnum absque injuria was revealed.

On the trial of a preliminary issue whether, on the facts set out in the statement of claim, the defendants were in law liable for the damage claimed:—

/Held, / (1) that the plaintiffs's claim under the strict rule of Rylands v. Fletcher <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I913A6901E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9> failed since the manufacture of electrical and electronic components in a factory on an industrial estate, and the bringing and storing of metal foil on the premises, could not be said to be a special use, but was a natural user of the site.

Dictum of Lord Moulton in Rickards v. Lothian [1913] A.C. 263, 279, P.C. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I880E6340E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9> and Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. [1947] A.C. 156; [1946] 2 All E.R. 471,H.L.(E.) applied <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I84B65EA0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9>.

(2) That the defendants, whose factory was only 150 yards away from the plaintiffs's, owed the plaintiffs a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the metal foil from being blown about in such a way as to foul the bus bars; that as regarded *960 remoteness of damage there was no difference in principle between the present case, which alleged physical injury with consequential loss of profits, and the ordinary case of negligence in which a plaintiff alleged that he had suffered some physical injury whereby he had lost earnings.

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562, H.L.(E.) applied <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I99FC57C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9>.

Weller & Co. v. Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966] 1 Q.B. 569; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 1082; [1965] 3 All E.R. 560 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=IF7A56F50E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9>; Electrochrome Ltd. v. Welsh Plastics Ltd. [1968] 2 All E.R. 205 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I5CABC9A0E43611DA8FC2A0F0355337E9> and Seaway Hotels Ltd. v. Gragg (Canada) Ltd., and Consumers Gas Co. (1960) 21 D.L.R. (2d) 264 considered <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?src=doc&linktype=ref&&context=5&crumb-action=replace&docguid=I99BA20D0E43611DA8FC2A0F0355337E9>.

(3) That an isolated happening by itself could create an actionable nuisance, and the plaintiffs, being directly and foreseeably affected by the defendants's negligent method of storing foil, had a good cause of action against them in nuisance.

On 18/10/2012 17:45, Jason Neyers wrote:

Dear Colleagues:

I was wondering whether anyone: (1) knows of any helpful discussions (judicial or academic) surrounding whether a one-off or isolated event can be a nuisance; and/or (2) has any definitive view on the matter that they would be willing to share. I am currently leaning to the view that a nuisance must be a state of affairs (the /Stone v Bolton/ line) but I am interested in other's views as to why this would be incorrect.

Sincerely,
--
Jason Neyers
Cassels Brock LLP Faculty Fellow in Contract Law
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

--
Dr Matt Dyson
Trinity College
Cambridge
CB2 1TQ
01223 338520

View my research on my SSRN author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1729519