4. Exceptions To The Rule

Question 1

Statutory exceptions:

Answer 1

Occupiers Liability act 1957

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

Question 2

Danger on land

Answer 2

Goldman v Hargrave: where lighting strike hit a tree causing fire on the land of D, he could not fail to act. He should take steps to put the fire out, even if simply calling the fire brigade, due to having control of the land.

Question 3

Creating a special danger sparked by a third party

Answer 3

Smith v Littlewoods: if D creates a source of danger he must take reasonable steps to prevent that danger being sparked off by a third party.

Haynes v Harwood: D created the source of danger by not tying the horse up. It was foreseeable that the danger (the horse) would be sparked off by a loud noise and therefore should have been tied up.

Topp v London Country Bus - bus driver left keys in the bus, a third party came, stole the bus and crashed it.

Question 4

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Answer 4

The rule is not absolute. There are 2 well recognised types of situations in which the common law may impose liability for a careless omission.

Para 99 per Lord Toulson: where D was in a position of control over a third party and should have foreseen the likelihood of that party causing damage to somebody in close proximity if D failed to take reasonable care in the exercise of that control.

Para 100 per Lord Toulson: Where D assumes a positive responsibility to safeguard C.