Omissions and Acts of Third Parties Flashcards
Stovin v Wise
Omissions generally do NOT give rise to tortious liability under English law. Three reasons given by Lord Hoffmann:
1) Political - restricts autonomy by forcing individuals to act
2) Moral - arbitrary to impose duty on some and not others, therefore unfair to impose a duty
3) Economic - inefficient resource allocation as economic theory states that people should generally bear the burden for their own activity
3 Exceptions to the General Rule in Stovin v Wise
1) Where D has created a risk
2) Occupation of land
3) Where D has assumed responsibility for C’s wellbeing
Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield
Where D has created a risk of injury, then they can be liable by omission if that risk materialises
Goldman v Hargrave
D can be liable for omission if a danger arises on land he is occupying and he does not take reasonable steps to prevent that danger spreading from his land to affect C
Sutradahar v Natural Environmental Research Council
The fact that a person has expert knowledge does not mean that they are under a duty to use that knowledge for the benefit of the world at large - so D is NOT liable for omissions where he simply does not disclose specialist information to the world at large
Capital and Counties v Hampshire County Council
No duty of care comes into existence for the fire services when either:
a) the service accepts the call - no proximity of relationship here
b) the fire brigade has arrived at the scene - this is because fire service owes a duty to the public at large, not just C. Imposing liability here would distort fire services performance
Kent v Griffiths
Note that the rule in Capital and Counties does NOT apply to ambulances. The reasoning is that once an ambulance has been allocated to an individual, it no longer owes a duty to the public at large but to that individual specifically.
So D can be liable for omission for assumption of C’s wellbeing when the ambulance is allocated to C.
Note also here that D was liable for an omission because in allocating the ambulance, they stopped C from getting to hospital otherwise since it wasn’t thought to be necessary.
Also says that where there is an ambulance helping lots of injured people, D can be liable if they unreasonably help one individual over another who is under more serious threat
Smith v Sussex
Lord Bingham attempted to reconcile the two cases by arguing that CC related to damage to property only, whereas Kent is concerned with personal injury = seems plausible to reconcile them, as the reasoning does not make sense otherwise
Jebson v Ministry of Defence
D can be liable for an omission if they assume responsibility for the whole activity, and fail to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of those involved
Reeves v MPC
Where D has extensive physical control over the situation, then a duty of care may be imposed under assumption of responsibility for C’s welfare. D was liable here for suicide of a prisoner, due to his info not being passed on when he was transferred
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
D can be liable for the acts of third parties where the 3P is under their control, and it is reasonably foreseeable that the damage would occur.
However, note that Lord Diplock and Lord Pearson thought that foreseeability alone was not sufficient to impose liability - also need to consider the underlying policy factors in imposing a duty
Smith v Littlewoods
HL majority held that forseeability of damage is the appropriate test for liability for D due to acts of third parties.
However, Lord Goff disagreed and instead suggested three categories for D being liable for 3P acts:
1) D assumes responsibility to prevent damage by third party
2) D has relationship with third party
3) D negligently causes a source of danger, which 3P then triggers and causes damage
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council
HL affirmed Lord Goff’s approach in Smith v Littlewoods - seems like forseeability plays a role still, but the current law focuses on Lord Goff’s three categories
Barrett v MoD
Where D assumes control of a particular situation for C’s wellbeing, then they are liable for omission if C subsequently suffers damage after they have left them
