DOC: Omissions & 3P

Question 1

Stovin v Wise

Answer 1

General rule: no DOC for omissions

Why? (Lord Hoffman)

1. Political (restrict autonomy)
2. Moral (why me?)
3. Economic (efficiency)
   (4. Compulsory Altruism (Lord Nicholls))

Question 2

Sutradhar v National Environment Research Council (quote)

Answer 2

“They can only be liable for things they did… not what they didn’t do”

HL restated rule of NO DOC for omissions

Question 3

Acts vs Omissions

Answer 3

ACT - made things worse

OMISSION - failed to improve situation

Question 4

When can you be liable for an omission?

Answer 4

1) Creating the risk
2) undertaking responsibility for C’s wellbeing
3) Occupation of the land

( 4) developing categories - doctors, alcohol sellers, parents)

Question 5

Creating the risk

Answer 5

Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield

• YES DOC
• D failed to improve situation when circumstances changed
• putting the risk there was not a negligent act at first

Question 6

Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council

Answer 6

undertaking responsibility for C’s wellbeing

• NO DOC
• because no contract/dealing between C and D
• just because a person has expert knowledge does not mean that person has a duty to use that knowledge for the benefit of the world
• expertise isn’t sufficient to amount to an undertaking of responsibility

Question 7

Capital & Counties v Hampshire County Council

Answer 7

FIREFIGHTERS do not have a general DOC to the C
- no proximity when receiving the call

• statutory obligation to fight fire is for the public at large, not to C because if a DOC was owed, it would distort fire brigade’s effectiveness at fighting fire
• only DOC when fire marshal said turn off sprinklers (positive act)

Question 8

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 8

AMBULANCE do owe a DOC to C (unlike fire fighters)

• ambulance is allocated to a particular case/patient (crucial point)
• rather than fire fighters who owe public at large
• even when ambulance is called to mass accident, still DOC because they make decisions (which conflicts with Capital that says conflicting demands is one reason why no DOC)

Question 9

Smith v Sussex

Answer 9

Bingham tried to explain Kent and Capital by saying:

Capital = property damage, covered by insurance

Kent = personal dmage

Question 10

Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Answer 10

NO positive duty to act can be found merely on the presence of statutory powers, which if exercised, might have prevented damage to C

Question 11

Watson v British Board of Boxing Control

Answer 11

YES DOC owed to boxers by the board

Why?

• reasoning blurs Caparo and Hedley Byrne
• said they reasonably relied
• and board assumed responsibility
• goes against Capital that says it doesn’t matter that people rely on fire brigade

Question 12

Barrett v MOD

Answer 12

YES DOC
(drunk man, officer said sleep it off)

• because D took control of the situation and assumed responsibility
• no DOC before that point

Question 13

Jebson v MOD

Answer 13

YES DOC
(drinking day out, organiser didn’t organise adequate transport)

• D organised trip and knew C would have impaired judgement on the way home so D owed duty to protect C from injuring himself
• CN = 75% REDUCTION

Question 14

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Answer 14

D’s status gave rise to DOC (not activity itself)

D had extensive physical control in the circumstances C was being held, and had the power to deprive suicide

Question 15

Occupation of Land

Answer 15

Goldman v Hargrave

Duty derived from D’s occupation of the land

D’s control of the property brings with it responsibility to prevent damage being caused by the property to neighbours

Question 16

Do Doctors owe a DOC to take positive steps to save people who are ill?

Answer 16

Capital & Counties - doctor coming upon someone injured in the street is not obligated to act like a good samaritan

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington - staff in hospital casualty department may assume DOC by helping or advising person seeking attention

Question 17

Reeves v Commr of Police

Answer 17

In institutions that take in/provide accommodation/services for vulnerable persons, a DOC is often owed

DOC extends to preventing self-inflicted injury

Hoffman - prisoners should be regarded as high suicide risk

NB. Prison authorities have no right to make prisoner eat if he’s trying to starve himself to death (Robb)
- so DOC only extends to depriving prisoner but not to using force against him

Question 18

Alcohol Serving Premises

Answer 18

UK - no clear authority
Australia - NO (Cole v South Tweed)

Canada - YES (Jordan House v Menow)

• D knew C often drank too much there (KNOWLEDGE)
• extending Canadian legislation

Question 19

Parent-Child, DOC?

Answer 19

XA v YA - probs not

Question 20

third party acts - liability?

Answer 20

GENERAL RULE: NO LIABILITY

Question 21

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

Answer 21

YES DOC, why? (reasoning not unanimous)

Lord Reid - foreseeability is basis of DOC

Lord Peace & Diplock - policy factors is the basis of DOC (here proximity limited scope of liability)

Lord Morris - policy factors in terms of foreseeability

Question 22

Smith v Littlewoods Corporation

Answer 22

NO DOC
Majority: foreseeability

Lord Goff: specific categories where D is owed to prevent 3P causing damage

1) D assumed responsibility
2) D has relationship with 3P (e.g. Dorset Yacht)
3) D negligently created a particular source of danger which 3P sets off

Question 23

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

Answer 23

NO DOC

• HELD LORD GOFF approach is the right one
• but judges focus on different categories (in PQ try all 3)

Lord Hope = assumption of responsibility is key q

Lord Roger & Hale = focus on the fact that D’s tactic was lawful and legitimate
- seems to be (3) of lord Goff
-