Omissions and public authorities Flashcards
What has the law drawn a line between
positive act which causes harm (misfeasance) and a mere failure to prevent harm from arising (non-misfeasance).
Are courts willing to impose liability for omissions
Generally not
Where was it said the common law does not impose liability for pure omissions
Smith V Littlewoods Organisations Limited per Lord Goff
Is there a duty to prevent harm
for a duty to rescue to arise in English law, a prior relationship of care must exist between D and the person who needs rescuing
Facts of Smith V Littlewoods Organisation
D had a disused cinema, which he intended to use the land for development. Vagrants occupied the building. On two occasions small fires broke out, but these fires had not been reported to the police or to D. Another evening, the full cinema set on fire causing damage to the neighbouring property’s land. C argued that D ought to have prevented the fire.)
What was decided in Smith V Littlewoods
It was held that while D were under a duty to prevent their property from becoming a source of danger to other properties, on the facts, the duty did not extend to controlling the activities of the vagrants because D did not know about them, so it was not reasonably foreseeable that a fire would start.
Facts of Mitchell V Glasgow CC
(Council had failed to protect life of one of its tenants when it took no steps to give warning about the possible actions of a violent neighbour who was facing eviction, who then assaulted C with an iron bar which led to his death
What was decided in Mitchell V Glasgow CC
The HoL rejected the claim that the council owed a duty of care here. Whilst some landlords owed a duty these did not extent to warning tenants of steps taken to evict others. Nor could the council be liable for the actions of a third party. They endorsed the approach taken in Smtih where in gereral there is no duty of care owed to prevent third parties from causing damage.
Expiation where there is a special relationship between D and C
This is where D has assumed a DoC to look after the claimants property.
Case where D has assumed a responsibility to look after property
Stansbie V Troman (P employed a decorator who went out and left the premises unsecured). Decorator was held liable for the losses caused by the thief who entered the property and stole some of P’s jewellery. The contractual relationship justified the imposition of liability.
exception where there is a special relationship between D and third party
Home Office V Dorset Yatch: held liable because there was a relationship of control over the third party who had caused the damage.
Exception where created a source of danger which is sparked off
D may be liable for creating dangerous situations which is subsequently “sparked off” by the foreseeable actions of third parties.
Haynes V Harwood (D left his horse in the street, when boys began throwing stones.) D was liable when the P was injured trying to save people from being injured by the horse.
Exception failing to take reasonable steps to abate the danger caused by a third party
Where D knows or ought to know, that third parties are creating a danger on his or her property, the D us under a duty ti take reasonable steps to abate the danger.
Case where it was known that a third party had created a danger
Clark Fixing Ltd V Littlewoods: (a known trespasser on a vacant development site started a fire which burned down neighbouring property) The CoA distinguished from Smith, and held that D council liable for failing to remove the combustible material from the site, so as to prevent the spread of fire, if, in Smith, the previous fires had been reported to the D , they too may have been liable on this principle.
Exception where D assumes a positive assumption to safeguard case with junction
Stovin V Wise (Mr Stovin suffered serious injuries when he was knocked off his motorcycle by a car driven by Mrs Wise. She had pulled out of a junction in which visibility of traffic was hampered due to a bank of earth which was topped by a fence.) No duty of care since they have no assumed responsibility for protecting all road users and road users are not relying on the local authority to protect them.
where D has assumed a positive responsibility to safeguard (suicide)
Reeves v Commissioner of Police: (suicide in detention of the police). The act of suicide was the very thing that the police were under a duty to prevent to treat this as a novus actus interveniens would deprive the duty of any substance. Therefore, the defendant was liable.
