Liability of Acts of Third Parties

Question 1

The circumstances in which a duty can be imposed on a defendant with respect of the actions of third parties:

Answer 1

1) Special relationship between the defendant and claimant:
2) Special relationship between the defendant and third party;
3) Someone creates a ‘source of danger’ that may be ‘sparked’ by a third party;
4) Failure to take steps to abate a known danger.

Question 2

Special relationship between the claimant and defendant case:

Answer 2

Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999]
Mrs Palmer alleged that the defendant health authority had been negligent in its assessment of a mentally ill patient who kidnapped, sexually assaulted and killed her daughter.
CoA held that the authority had no duty of care to her daughter, as the necessary level of proximity did not exist. No special relationship.
Stuart-Smith LJ: “once rules are established, not open to courts to extend the accepted principles of proximity simply because the facts of a given case are particularly horrifying or heart-wrenching.”

Question 3

Special relationship between the defendant and third party case:

Answer 3

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]
The defendants, the boys’ (young offenders) supervisors negligently allowed a group of them to escape and damage the claimant’s yacht moored in the harbour. The supervisory nature of the relationship created the requisite degree of proximity between the defendants and the third parties. The damage suffered was a direct consequence of this relationship ‘failing’.

Question 4

Creating a source of danger which can be ‘sparked’ by a third party case:

Answer 4

Haynes v Harwood [1936]
Defendants left his horses untethered on a busy street. Some children threw stones at them which ‘sparked’ the danger. A police officer was injured trying to control the horses and the defendant owed him a duty of care.

Question 5

Failure to abate a known danger case:

Answer 5

Smith v Littlewoods Corporations [1987]
Claimant’s property was damaged by fire spreading from a derelict cinema owned by Littlewoods after vandals entered it at night and started a fire. Where a danger was known, a duty would be owed in respect of it. No such duty was owed because Littlewoods had no reason to suspect the vandals’ entry and the only way they could have prevented it was around-the-clock security which would have been disproportionate to the level of risk.