Key issues Flashcards
What authority can you use for there to be no liability for pure omissions or the acts of third parties?
Stovin v Wise [1996]
What does Stovin v Wise [1996] say about pure omissions and and the acts of third parties
“It is another thing for the law to require that a person who is doing nothing in particular shall take steps to prevent another from suffering harm from the acts of third parties…or from natural causes.”aka there is no liability for pure omissions or the acts of third parties and defendants are not liable for what third parties have done
What does pure omission mean?
Where there is no pre-tort relationship or conduct that gives rise to a positive duty to act/control the third party aka there in no relationship between the parties
Are defendants liable for what third parties have done?
No - Stovin v Wise
If you try and help a situation, it is no longer an omission. Could you then be sued?
Yes - SARAH (Social Action Responsibility Heroism Act)
What did the case of Sutradhar v National Environmental Research Council [2006] find
General rule: There is no liability in negligence for pure omissions
- claimant contracted arsenic poisoning after drinking from an irrigation well in Bangladesh
- the well had been tested by the British Society and produced a report that the water was safe for consumption
- was held the British held no positive duties to the government or the people of Bangladesh to do anything
- there was no relationship between the British and the Bangladesh government therefore this was a pure omission and the British would not be liable
What does ss.2&4 of Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 find?
The courts will take “social action” and “heroism” into account when considering “breach” in the context of rescuers
This act doesn’t give immunity to rescuers nor does it create a duty to go to somebody’s aid
If the defendant has a high degree of control over the claimant, would the defendant be more likely to foresee the harm?
Yes. E.g. a parent and a child
What did the case of Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000] find?
Omission exception - if there is control then the defendant may be liable
An omission may attract negligence liability if D exercises a high level of control over C
- a prisoner (not known to be a suicide risk like in Kirkham) committed suicide in police custody
- the police was found to have a positive duty to assess prisoners as they have a high control over the prisoners and even those without signs of being a suicide risk should be treated as such
- the court did reduce the damages by 50% for contributory negligence as they recognised the prisoners own conduct
What case held for the omission exception that where the defendant has control over the claimant that the defendant may be liable?
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000]
- prisoner committed suicide case
What did the case of Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999] find?
Omission Exception: assumption of responsibility An assumption of responsibility (e.g. through employment) may give rise to liability for omissions
- a female police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell and despite calling for help, a police inspector nearby did not come to help even though he could hear her
- the court did not accept this as an omission
- the inspector had assumed responsibility and the chief constable was vicariously liable
What case is the omission exception where there is an assumption of responsibility where the defendant has taken on a relationship that creates a positive duty to act? (e.g. through employment)
Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999]
- female police officer case
and Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995]
- choked on vomit
What did the case of Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] find?
Omission Exception: assumption of responsibility
An assumption of responsibility (e.g. through positive action) may give rise to liability for omissions
- naval pilot became so drunk he collapsed
- the officer on duty ordered the pilot to be taken to bed but nobody stayed to watch the pilot and he choked to death on his vomit
- officers had assumed responsibility by ordering the pilot to be taken to his bed
- damages were reduced by 25% for contributory negligence as the pilot got himself that drunk
What authority can be used as the omission exception where you create or adopt a risk - if a defendant accidentally creates a danger, they have a duty to deal with the danger
Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997]
- fire fighter did a positive act of turning sprinklers off
What is the leading authority that the fire brigade do not owe a duty to the member of the public when carrying out its service
Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997]
What did the case of Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] find?
Omission exception: creating or adopting a risk may give rise to liability for omissions
- authority that fire brigade don’t owe duty to public
- fire chief turned sprinkler system off on the claimants property [positive act] which allowed the fire to spread more rapidly
- once the chief made this decision he created a risk of danger and then owed a duty to protect the claimant’s property
- fire brigade found liable as more harm was caused from turning sprinklers off than if they were kept on
What case can be used for where there is a relationship between the C&D where the D has expressly promised not to do something
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997]
- informant identify leak
- special relationship between c&d
What case can be used for where there is a relationship between the C&D where the D has implied promised not to do something
Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999]
- woman police officer attacked
- special relationship between c&d
What did the case of Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997] find
A special relationship of sufficient proximity between C and D may give rise to negligence liability in respect of the acts of a third party
- claimant was a police informant and made it clear that her safety would be at risk if the criminal were to discover her identity
- police left her information in an unlocked police car
- documents were stolen and the claimant was harassed from which she suffered psychiatric harm
- although the real damage was caused by the criminal, the court held that the police owed the claimant a duty to keep her identity safe
- this has been hard to prove in other cases [Palmer v Tees [1999]]
What case held that a special relationship of sufficient proximity between C and D may give rise to negligence liability in respect of the acts of a third party
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997]
- police informant case
What case found that finding a special relationship of sufficient proximity between C and D which may give rise to negligence liability in respect of the acts of a third party has proved difficult to establish and a direct undertaking is required
Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999]
- mentally ill patient negligently released and sexually assaulted and killed a child
- health authority not found liable for releasing him
What did Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] find?
Finding a special relationship of sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant has proved to be difficult to establish
- health authority negligently assessed and released a mentally ill patient who indicated he had sexual feelings towards children and threatened to abduct and murder child
- on release, the patient kidnapped, sexually assaulted and mutilated the claimants 4 year old daughter who lived on the same street [proximity]
- the court found the health authority didn’t owe either the claimant or her daughter as there wasn’t sufficient proximity between them to give rise to a duty of care capable of extending to the acts of third parties
What case found a special (pre-tort) relationship of sufficient proximity between the defendant and the third party may give rise to negligence liability for the acts of the third party?
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970]
- young offenders escaped and caused damage to the claimants yacht
What did the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] find?
A special (pre-tort) relationship of sufficient proximity between the defendant and the third party may give rise to negligence liability for the acts of the third party
- group of young offenders were detained and in the care of the Home Office
- Negligently, the home officer allowed the young offenders to escape and cause damage to the claimants yachts
- there was such a relationship between the offenders and the home office that they should have stopped the offenders from escaping - they did the very thing the home office expected the offenders to do
- held that the supervisory nature of the relationship between the defendants and the young offenders (couples with the high degree of foreseeability of this harm) led the court to conclude that the home officer did owe a duty to the claimants
- the claimants, in order to be successful, had to also show the acts of the offenders didn’t break the chain [it didn’t as their actions were inevitable]
