Liability for Omissions Flashcards
What is the general rule regarding omissions in tort law?
A) There is no duty to act unless the law imposes one
B) There is always a duty to act to prevent harm
C) A person must act if they are aware of a dangerous situation
D) A person can be sued for failing to act even if they had no legal obligation
A) There is no duty to act unless the law imposes one
Explanation:
The general rule is that a person is not liable for failing to act, unless an exception applies (Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd 1987).
Which of the following is an exception to the general rule on omissions?
A) A passerby failing to help an injured person
B) A police officer failing to respond to an emergency call
C) A teacher failing to supervise a student in their care
D) A shop owner refusing to help a customer outside their shop
C) A teacher failing to supervise a student in their care
Explanation:
A teacher has a duty of care towards their students under the assumption of responsibility principle.
In which case did the court find that the police owed a duty to prevent a prisoner from harming themselves?
A) Barrett v Ministry of Defence
B) Kent v Griffiths
C) Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
D) Goldman v Hargrave
C) Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Explanation:
The police had control over the prisoner, making them responsible for preventing foreseeable self-harm (Reeves v Commissioner of Police 1999).
A decorator is hired to work in a house but forgets to lock the door when leaving. A burglar enters and steals valuables. Who is liable?
A) The homeowner, for failing to have a better security system
B) The decorator, because they had a contractual duty to secure the property
C) The burglar alone, as they committed the crime
D) No one, because it was an unforeseeable event
B) The decorator, because they had a contractual duty to secure the property
Explanation:
In Stansbie v Troman (1948), the decorator was liable because he had assumed responsibility for securing the house.
When does the fire brigade owe a duty of care?
A) When responding to a 999 call
B) Only when they start fighting a fire and worsen the situation
C) Whenever a fire is reported to them
D) Always, as they are a public service
D) Always, as they are a public service
Explanation:
The fire brigade has no general duty to attend fires, but if they make the situation worse, they may be liable (Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC 1997).
A property owner fails to fix a broken stair railing, leading to a visitor falling and injuring themselves. Can the owner be held liable?
A) No, because the visitor should have been more careful
B) Yes, because the owner has a statutory duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
C) No, because the visitor was not forced to use the stairs
D) Yes, but only if the visitor was invited to the property
A) No, because the visitor should have been more careful
Explanation:
While occupiers owe a duty, visitors must also take reasonable care (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957). However, liability depends on circumstances.
A paramedic receives a 999 call but diverts to a more urgent case. The original patient’s condition worsens. Is the ambulance service liable?
A) No, because they have discretion in allocating resources
B) Yes, because they have a duty to respond to 999 calls
C) No, because they did not cause the original illness
D) Yes, because the patient relied on their help
C) No, because they did not cause the original illness
Explanation:
The ambulance service has a duty to respond, but they can prioritise cases (Kent v Griffiths 2000). However, liability depends on circumstances.
A factory owner fails to repair faulty electrical wiring. A fire breaks out, damaging a neighbouring property. Could they be liable?
A) No, because the fire was not started intentionally
B) Yes, because they created the risk and failed to prevent it
C) No, because the fire spread beyond their control
D) Yes, but only if they had been warned about the risk in advance
A) No, because the fire was not started intentionally
Explanation:
While a person who creates a dangerous situation may be liable (Goldman v Hargrave 1967), liability depends on foreseeability and control over the risk.
A pub owner ejects a drunk customer late at night, knowing they are too intoxicated to get home safely. The customer is later injured. Could the pub owner be liable?
A) No, because they were not responsible for the customer’s safety outside the pub
B) Yes, because they assumed responsibility by allowing the customer to drink there
C) No, because the customer made their own decisions
D) Yes, if the pub owner was aware of a foreseeable danger
D) Yes, if the pub owner was aware of a foreseeable danger
Explanation:
A person may be liable if they create a foreseeable risk, similar to Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1995).
A police officer ignores an emergency call from a woman at risk of domestic violence. She is later attacked. Could the police be liable?
A) No, because the police owe no duty to respond to emergency calls
B) Yes, because they failed in their duty to prevent crime
C) No, because they were not the cause of the attack
D) Yes, but only if the victim had reported threats before
C) No, because they were not the cause of the attack
Explanation:
The police are not required to respond to emergency calls (Alexandrou v Oxford 1993), but they may have a duty in other circumstances (Reeves v Commissioner of Police 1999).
