Third Party Liability

Question 1

Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970]

Answer 1

Borstal boys case - damage to yachts when trying to escape.

Officers held liable.

• Very strong relationship of control between officers and borstal boys - officers had ability and lawful authority to control and direct the conduct of the borstal boys.
• Determinate class of foreseeable victims - fact that they were on an island
• Whole incident - highly foreseeable - character or the borstal boys and their propensity to engage in harmful conduct.

AUTHORITY THAT THERE IS DoC TO CONTROL ACTIONS OF THIRD PARTY WHEN:

(i) STRONG RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORITY AND CONTROL BETWEEN ‘RESPONSIBLE’ DEFENDANT AND ‘IRRESPONSIBLE’ THIRD PARTY.
(ii) WHEN CLAIMANT COMES WITHIN A DEFINED CLASS OF POTENTIAL VICTIMS.
(iii) HARM SOMETHING VERY LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Question 2

Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Answer 2

Authority - prevent prison inmates from harming themselves.

An example of preventing third parties from causing harm.

Question 3

Clunis v Camden & Islington HA

Answer 3

Example of failure of mental health institutions to control criminal actions of third parties - no DoC for policy reasons (ex turpi causa non oritur actio)

Question 4

Everett v Comojo [2011]

Answer 4

Nightclub case - waitress concerned there would be fight - informed manager.

Held; can be DoC to protect is guests from actions committed by other guests (example of third parties)
Applied Caparo test - held there was sufficient foreseeability, proximity and would be fair, just and reasonable, so long as scope of the duty is set reasonably.
HOWEVER - FAILED AT BREACH STAGE - THREAT WAS NOT IMMINENT ENOUGH.

Question 5

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]

Answer 5

Example of third party liability situations involving property owners.

Derelict cinema - set on fire by intruders - damage to surrounding properties - claimed that D’s omission to have 24 hour caretaker, keep locked properly etc. failed to prevent the harm.

H of L: Whether or not DoC is owned between occupiers of adjoining properties to protect the from acts committed by third party intruders is dependent on the particular facts of each case.

Claim dismissed on basis that D had no previous knowledge of attempted vandalism previously and fire risk was not RF.
Law would be restrictive to require an empty property to have 24 hour security.