Duty Of Care: Omissions and Third Parties Flashcards
Omissions General Rule
Mere failure to act is generally not actionable
Stovin v Wise:
-no positive duty to act: not liable for pure omissions
Exception 1: Control
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Facts: • Police commissioner owed a DoC to a prisoner to take reasonable care to prevent him from committing suicide
Judgment: claim successful
L.P: •Police were under a DoC yo take reasonable care not to give the prisoner the opportunity to kill himself
•contributed to his death
Exception 2: Assumption of Responsibility
Barrett v Ministry of Defence
Facts: • Navy man promoted and got very drunk
•He was escorted to his cabin where he was left
•He choked on his own vomit and died
Judgment: DoC Established
L.P: •DoC was formed when he collapsed and his friends assumed responsibility for him
Exception 3: Creating or Adopting Risks
Goldman v Hargrave
Facts: • Tall tree struck by lighting caught fire
• Man moved combustible material away and sprayed water around
• A few days later the fire started again and damaged nearby property
Judgement: DoC owed
L.P: • was foreseeable and proximity to neighbour
Exception 3: Creating/ Adopting Risks
General principle
D becomes liable if D creates the danger or if D takes positive action and makes the situation worse
Liability for Acts of Third Parties
General rule
No liability for deliberate interventions.
Acts of Third Parties
Exception 1: Control - D- TP relationship
Dorset Yacht v Home Office
Facts: •Borstal boys were under control of D’s officers
• Officers failed to supervise boys properly
• Boys caused damage to owners of Yachts, C
Judgment: Claim successful
L.P: •Damage occurred as a direct result of officers failure to supervise
Exception 2: Assumption of responsibility D-C relationship
Palmer v Tees Health Authority
Facts: • A third party underwent mental assessments and was released
• TP went on to injure Cs child
• C argued D should not have released him
Judgement: no DoC found
L.P: •Not a sufficient enough link to establish DoC between D and C
Exception 3: Creation of Risk
Third party actions exacerbate a danger created by D
Topp v London Country Buses
Facts: • Bus left running with keys in ignition
• People took bus and ran someone over
•C sued bus people
Judgment: No DoC
L.P: •No reason to expect bus being taken
• May have been at fault but D did not CREATE the risk
Exception 4:
Failure to Abate a known danger
Smith v Littlewoods
L.P: • A general Duty on occupiers to take care with respect to things on their premises which might foreseeably cause harm to neighbouring property
