Flash Cards Tort Law Liability for Omissions
What is the principle established in Stovin v Wise (1996)?
There is generally no liability for omissions unless a special relationship exists.
What was the outcome of Stovin v Wise (1996)?
The court held there was no liability for omission in this case.
What is the principle established in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970)?
Topic: Liability for Omissions
Principle: Liability may arise from omissions when there is a special relationship (e.g., duty of care).
Summary: Young offenders escaped from a detention centre and caused damage to yachts.
Outcome: The Home Office was found liable for the omission in preventing the escape.
What was the outcome of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970)?
ThTopic: Liability for Omissions (Duty of Care)
Principle: Public bodies can be liable for omissions if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
Summary: Young offenders escaped from a detention center, damaging nearby yachts.
Outcome: The Home Office was found liable for failing to supervise the offenders.
e Home Office was found liable for the omission in preventing the escape.
What is the principle regarding public bodies in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970)?
Topic: Liability for Omissions (Public Authorities)
Principle: Public authorities generally have no duty to act unless there is a specific statutory duty or relationship with the claimant.
Summary: The council failed to remove an obstruction from a highway, causing an accident.
Outcome: The court ruled the council was not liable due to the absence of a duty to act.
What was the outcome of the Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) regarding supervision?
The Home Office was found liable for failing to supervise the offenders.
What is the principle established in Stovin v Wise (1996) regarding public authorities?
Public authorities generally have no duty to act unless there is a specific statutory duty or relationship with the claimant.
What was the outcome of Stovin v Wise (1996) regarding the council’s duty?
The court ruled the council was not liable due to the absence of a duty to act.
What is the principle established in Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1995)?
Topic: Liability for Omissions (Military Duty of Care)
Principle: Liability can arise from omissions if a duty to act exists and the failure to act causes harm.
Summary: A soldier died after excessive drinking, and it was argued that the Ministry of Defence failed in their duty to prevent this.
Outcome: The court found that the Ministry was liable as they had a duty to protect the soldier and failed in their responsibility.
Liability can arise from omissions if a duty to act exists and the failure to act causes harm.
What was the outcome of Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1995)?
The court found that the Ministry was liable as they had a duty to protect the soldier and failed in their responsibility.
What is the principle established in Osman v Ferguson (1993)?
Topic: Liability for Omissions (Duty of Care)
Principle: A duty of care can arise from omissions if a person has assumed responsibility for the safety of another.
Summary: The plaintiff’s family was attacked by a teacher who had been the subject of a police investigation but had not been removed from the school.
Outcome: The court found that the police were not liable as they did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.
What was the outcome of Osman v Ferguson (1993)?
The court found that the police were not liable as they did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.
What is the principle established in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987)?
Topic: Liability for Omissions (Duty to Prevent Third Party Actions)
Principle: Liability for omissions may arise if there is a special relationship or assumption of responsibility.
Summary: A fire was caused by vandals in a property left unsecured by the defendant, and the claimant’s property was damaged as a result.
Outcome: The House of Lords ruled that there was no duty of care for the defendant to prevent third-party actions in this instance.
What was the outcome of Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987)?
The House of Lords ruled that there was no duty of care for the defendant to prevent third-party actions in this instance.
What is the principle regarding police liability established in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)?
Topic: Liability for Omissions (Police Liability)
Principle: The police may not be liable for failing to prevent harm unless a special relationship exists or they have assumed responsibility.
Summary: The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper sued the police for failing to catch the killer before her daughter’s murder.
Outcome: The House of Lords held that the police owed no duty of care in this case and therefore were not liable.
What was the outcome of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)?
The House of Lords held that the police owed no duty of care in this case and therefore were not liable.
