Omissions

Question 1

Lord Hoffman quote from Stovin v Wise [1996]:

Answer 1

“It is one thing for the law to say that a person who understands some activity shall take reasonable care not to cause damage to others. 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.”

Question 2

Exceptions to the general exclusionary rule of no duty for omissions:

Answer 2

1) Control;
2) Assumption of responsibility;
3) Creation (or adoption) of risks.

Question 3

Control case:

Answer 3

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000]
Martin Lynch committed suicide while being held in police custody, his partner claimed that the police had owed him a duty to prevent this from happening.
House of Lords held that the police’s duty to prisoners in custody did extend to a positive duty to take reasonable steps to assess the suicide risk of all prisoners, justified by the high degree of control and the known suicide risk.

Question 4

Assumption of responsibly case:

Answer 4

Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995]
Naval pilot stationed an on a remote base where extreme drunkenness was commonplace was celebrating his birthday and he became so drunk he collapsed. Officer on duty ordered that he be taken to his bed - no one stayed and he choked on his own vomit.
Court of Appeal held that the duty was not in relation to discouraging alcoholism, but the duty was owed in relation to the duty officer’s failure to have someone watch over the drunken man. Responsibility for the man’a safety had been assumed by the officer.

Question 5

Creation or adoption of risk cases:

Answer 5

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997]
Fire service, as a public body, owed a duty to a property owners when it either creates the danger or where it’s positive actions make the situation worse. Fire chief decided to turn off a sprinkler system, CC vicariously liable.

Goldman v Hargrave [1967]
Tree caught fire after struck my lightning. Landowner cut it down, but let it burn itself out. In taking no steps to extinguish the fire completely he adopted the risk of it spreading.

Question 6

Lord Goff in Smith v Littlewoods:

Answer 6

“The common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions.”