Liability for Acts of Third Parties Flashcards
What is the general rule regarding liability for the acts of third parties?
A) A person is only liable if they directly caused the harm
B) A person is always liable if they were in the vicinity of the harm
C) A person is never liable for harm caused by a third party
D) A person is liable for third-party acts if an exception applies
D) A person is liable for third-party acts if an exception applies
Explanation:
The general rule is that a person is not liable for failing to prevent third-party harm, unless an exception applies (Smith v Littlewoods 1987).
When can a person be liable for the actions of a third party on their premises?
A) If they knew or should have known about a foreseeable danger
B) If the third party was under 18
C) If the premises were open to the public
D) If the third party intended to cause harm
A) If they knew or should have known about a foreseeable danger
Explanation:
A duty may exist if the defendant knew or ought to have known of the risk (Smith v Littlewoods 1987).
Which case confirmed that the police do not owe a duty to prevent harm to unidentified members of the public?
A) Home Office v Dorset Yacht
B) Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria
C) Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
D) Stansbie v Troman
C) Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Explanation:
The police were not liable for failing to prevent the Yorkshire Ripper’s crimes because the victim was not an identifiable individual at specific risk (Hill v Chief Constable 1989).
In which situation might a duty of care exist for harm caused by a third party?
A) If the defendant and claimant have a sufficiently close relationship
B) If the third party is an adult making independent decisions
C) If the defendant had no knowledge of the risk created by the third party
D) If the third party was a complete stranger to the defendant
A) If the defendant and claimant have a sufficiently close relationship
Explanation:
A duty of care may arise if there is sufficient proximity between the defendant and the claimant (Home Office v Dorset Yacht 1970).
A shop owner allows a customer to charge their phone inside the shop. The customer later uses the phone to arrange an attack on another person. Could the shop owner be liable?
A) No, because the shop owner did not assume responsibility for the third party
B) Yes, because they created the risk by letting the person inside
C) No, because it was the third party’s decision to act
D) Yes, if the shop had a history of similar incidents
D) Yes, if the shop had a history of similar incidents
Explanation:
A duty may arise if the risk was foreseeable based on prior similar incidents (Mitchell v Glasgow City Council 2009).
A nightclub ejects an aggressive customer. Minutes later, the customer attacks another patron outside. Could the nightclub be liable?
A) Yes, because they failed to prevent foreseeable harm
B) No, because the attacker was outside the premises
C) No, because the club did not employ the attacker
D) Yes, if the club had a history of similar incidents
D) Yes, if the club had a history of similar incidents
Explanation:
A duty may arise if the harm was foreseeable and preventable, similar to Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (2009).
A psychiatric hospital releases a patient with a known history of violence. Days later, the patient kills a stranger. Could the hospital be liable?
A) No, because the attack did not happen immediately after release
B) Yes, because the hospital had control over the patient
C) No, because the victim was not an identifiable individual
D) Yes, but only if the patient was still under medical supervision
C) No, because the victim was not an identifiable individual
Explanation:
A duty may exist if the victim is identifiable, but in Palmer v Tees Health Authority (1999), the victim was random, so no duty was owed.
A landlord knows that tenants have been repeatedly threatened by a dangerous ex-tenant. The ex-tenant later attacks a resident. Could the landlord be liable?
A) No, because landlords do not owe duties beyond maintenance issues
B) Yes, because they failed to act despite knowing about the risk
C) No, because criminal acts are not foreseeable
D) Yes, but only if the ex-tenant had broken into the property
B) Yes, because they failed to act despite knowing about the risk
Explanation:
A duty may exist if the defendant was aware of the risk and failed to act, as in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council (2009).
A university security team is warned that a student has made threats to harm classmates. Hours later, the student attacks another student. Could the university be liable?
A) No, because students are responsible for their own actions
B) Yes, because the university assumed responsibility for campus safety
C) No, because the attacker was not under direct supervision at the time
D) Yes, but only if the university failed to follow standard procedures
D) Yes, but only if the university failed to follow standard procedures
Explanation:
A duty may arise if there is assumed responsibility, but it depends on whether reasonable precautions were taken.
A property owner leaves a ladder outside. A thief uses the ladder to break into a neighbouring house. Could the property owner be liable?
A) No, because the thief made an independent decision
B) Yes, because the owner created a foreseeable risk
C) No, because the ladder was on private property
D) Yes, but only if the thief had broken into the owner’s own house
B) Yes, because the owner created a foreseeable risk
Explanation:
A defendant may be liable if they create a dangerous situation (Stansbie v Troman 1948).
