Acts of third parties Flashcards
Acts of third parties by
In the same way that there is no general duty to act, there is no general duty of care in relation to the acts of third parties, unless there is a special relationship with that third party.
Stansbie v Troman (1948 (This cases shows that the defendant was liable) because he was left in charge of the claimant home
In Stansbie v Troman (1948), the defendant was a decorator, working on the claimant’s premises. The claimant, leaving him alone in the house when she went out, specifically requested that he should be sure to lock up before he left. He failed to do this, with the result that she was burgled. The existence of a contractual relationship between them was enough in this case to establish a relationship of proximity and so impose a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent a burglary.
P Perl (Exporters) v Camden London Borough Council (1984) This case prove that the defendant is not liable because he does owe the claimant a duty of care to keep his house locked up
In P Perl (Exporters) v Camden London Borough Council (1984), the defendant council owned two adjoining buildings, numbers 142 and 144. The first was rented by the claimant, and the second was empty. There was no lock on the door of number 144, making it possible for thieves to enter, and, by knocking a hole in the wall, some thieves got through to number 142 and burgled it. The Court of Appeal held that the council was not liable for negligence: they might have foreseen the risk of harm in leaving the property without a lock, but that was not sufficient to make them responsible for the acts of the burglars.There are, however, five circumstances where a duty of care regarding the acts of third parties may arise. The first and perhaps most common is where the law imposes vicarious liability The other four are:
● where there is a relationship of proximity between the claimant and the defendant;
● where there is a relationship of proximity between the defendant and a third party who causes damage to the claimant;
● where the defendant has negligently created a source of danger; and
● where the defendant knew or had reason to know that a third party was creating a risk to others on the defendant’s property.
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police This is where the police owed the informant a duty of care to protect him
(The defendant–claimant relationship of proximity)
Where the police were held to have a duty of care to a particular claimant because she had supplied them with information regarding a criminal and stressed that it should be kept confidential, and it was clear that, if they did not do so, there was a serious risk that the criminal whom the information concerned would try to take revenge on the claimant.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988). This case the police was not liable because the claimant did not have a special relationship with the police she was in danger just like any other woman
(The defendant–claimant relationship of proximity)
In that case, the mother of one of the women killed by Peter Sutcliffe, better known as the Yorkshire Ripper, sued the police, arguing that they had been negligent in failing to catch him earlier and so prevent her daughter’s murder. It was held in this case that there was no relationship of proximity between the police and the claimant’s daughter, since there was no reason for them to believe she was in special danger from Sutcliffe; she was simply in the same general danger as any member of the female public in the area where the murders were being committed.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970). The defendant was liable because they where incharge of the the third party that carried out the act
Here prison officers (employed by the Home Office) were in charge of a youth custody centre, called a borstal, situated on an island. Due to their negligence, some boys escaped from the borstal and took boats belonging to the claimants to try to get away from the island, damaging the boats in the process. The House of Lords found that the Home Office was liable for the acts of the boys because the boys
were under the officers’ control (or at least they were supposed to be!). However, that did not mean that the Home Office owed a duty to anyone who might suffer damage caused by the boys, only those at particular risk; the yacht owners were held to fall into this category because it was clearly foreseeable that if the boys escaped, they would try to get off the island by stealing boats.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation (1987).
Here, Littlewoods were the owners of a disused cinema. While it stood empty, vandals set the building on fire, and the fire spread, causing damage to neighbouring buildings. The House of Lords held that an occupier of land could owe a duty to prevent risks caused on it by third parties, although on the facts of the case Littlewoods had not been negligent, since they had not known about the vandals and the
precautions they had taken to keep trespassers out were reasonable.
(Creating a risk of danger)
A defendant who negligently creates or allows the creation of a risk of danger may be liable if a third party’s actions cause that danger to injure the claimant.
Haynes v Harwood (1935) (Creating a risk of danger) The defendant was held liable because with out the kids troubling his horse he could still be easily startled
Haynes v Harwood (1935), where horses were left unattended in a busy street and bolted when some children threw stones at them. The owner of the horse was held to owe a duty of care to a police officer who, seeing the danger, ran after the horse and caught it, injuring himself in the process.
Topp v London Country Bus (South West) (1993),
where a bus was left unattended outside a pub by the defendant’s employee, with the keys left in the ignition. When the pub closed,somebody got into the bus and drove it away. There was evidence that the bus was being driven erratically and without headlights, and ultimately it hit and killed the claimant. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant’s leaving the bus as he did was not sufficient to amount to creating the kind of risk which would create a duty of care as in Haynes.
