Hanrahan v Merck Sharp Dohme (Ireland) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1988
• Date: 01 January 1988
• Court: Supreme Court

(S.C.)

Hanrahan

and

Merck Sharp & Dohme (Ireland) Ltd

Whether emissions shown to be cause of injuries claimed to have been suffered - Onus of proof - Whether defendants under obligation to disprove plaintiffs' claim in nuisance - Whether plaintiffs' onus at common law amounts to failure to vindicate property rights - Whether proof of offensive smells may support claim in nuisance - Whether interference with property beyond what was reasonable - Whether on balance of probabilities medical evidence corroborated plaintiffs' claims - Injuries to animals - Whether caused by factory emissions - Damage to plant life - Whether caused by factory emissions - Constitution of Ireland,1937, Art. 40.3. Practice - Appeal - Supreme Court - Function of Court - Primary and secondary facts - Whether Supreme Court empowered to reach different conclusions to those of trial court in relation to inferences from primary facts.

The plaintiffs farmed land which was situated about one mile from the defendants' factory, which opened in 1976. The factory engaged in the processing of pharmaceutical products, which involved the storage and use of large quantities of toxic substances as well as the disposal in the factory of toxic and dangerous chemical residues. The plaintiffs instituted proceedings claiming that by virtue of the manner in which the defendants conducted their operation from 1978 to 1983 the plaintiffs and their farm animals, as well as plant life on the farm, suffered severe injuries and damage. The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed in the High Court (Unreported, Keane J., 7 August 1985). On appeal by the plaintiffs, it was Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., Henchy and Hederman JJ.) in allowing the appeal, 1, although the plaintiffs had grounded their claim in negligence as well as on the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher and also in nuisance, the matter had been dealt with in the High Court as a claim in nuisance; and since it had not been contended that the trial judge had erred in this respect, the claim would be treated as one in nuisance. 2. The plaintiffs were not required to prove want of due care by the defendants in the manner in which they conducted their operation at the factory, and it was sufficient for the claim in nuisance to succeed that they establish that they had not enjoyed the comfortable and healthy use of their land to the degree that would be expected by an ordinary person whose requirements are objectively reasonable in all the...