Question 1
The plaintiff claimed that the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct was substantial, and not fleeting and that the interference with the plaintiff’s property was unreasonable, despite the erection of the fence. Essentially, the number of golf balls being hit onto the property prevented the plaintiff from undertaking activities on the property or simply enjoying the view.
Question 2
The answer to this question will depend on the personal views of each student. However, it is expected that students will note that the conduct was indeed NOT fleeting under the circumstances.
Question 3
The answer to this question will depend on the personal views of each student. However, it is expected that the student will note that the interference with the plaintiff’s property was unreasonable under the circumstances, given the negative impact on the plaintiff’s enjoyment of her property.
Question 4
Given the judgement of the court, the defendant didn’t take ‘reasonable’ precautions to reduce the interference with the plaintiff’s property given that the erection of the fence was inadequate. In other words, while steps were indeed taken to prevent balls entering the plaintiff’s property, these steps were considered inadequate or unreasonable under the circumstances.
Question 5
The answer to this question will depend on the personal views of each student.