Key issues

Question 1

What authority can you use for there to be no liability for pure omissions or the acts of third parties?

Answer 1

Stovin v Wise [1996]

Question 2

What does Stovin v Wise [1996] say about pure omissions and and the acts of third parties

Answer 2

“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.”aka there is no liability for pure omissions or the acts of third parties and defendants are not liable for what third parties have done

Question 3

What does pure omission mean?

Answer 3

Where there is no pre-tort relationship or conduct that gives rise to a positive duty to act/control the third party aka there in no relationship between the parties

Question 4

Are defendants liable for what third parties have done?

Answer 4

No - Stovin v Wise

Question 5

If you try and help a situation, it is no longer an omission. Could you then be sued?

Answer 5

Yes - SARAH (Social Action Responsibility Heroism Act)

Question 6

What did the case of Sutradhar v National Environmental Research Council [2006] find

Answer 6

General rule: There is no liability in negligence for pure omissions

• claimant contracted arsenic poisoning after drinking from an irrigation well in Bangladesh
• the well had been tested by the British Society and produced a report that the water was safe for consumption
• was held the British held no positive duties to the government or the people of Bangladesh to do anything
• there was no relationship between the British and the Bangladesh government therefore this was a pure omission and the British would not be liable

Question 7

What does ss.2&4 of Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 find?

Answer 7

The courts will take “social action” and “heroism” into account when considering “breach” in the context of rescuers
This act doesn’t give immunity to rescuers nor does it create a duty to go to somebody’s aid

Question 8

If the defendant has a high degree of control over the claimant, would the defendant be more likely to foresee the harm?

Answer 8

Yes. E.g. a parent and a child

Question 9

What did the case of Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000] find?

Answer 9

Omission exception - if there is control then the defendant may be liable
An omission may attract negligence liability if D exercises a high level of control over C

• a prisoner (not known to be a suicide risk like in Kirkham) committed suicide in police custody
• the police was found to have a positive duty to assess prisoners as they have a high control over the prisoners and even those without signs of being a suicide risk should be treated as such
• the court did reduce the damages by 50% for contributory negligence as they recognised the prisoners own conduct

Question 10

What case held for the omission exception that where the defendant has control over the claimant that the defendant may be liable?

Answer 10

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000]

- prisoner committed suicide case

Question 11

What did the case of Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999] find?

Answer 11

Omission Exception: assumption of responsibility An assumption of responsibility (e.g. through employment) may give rise to liability for omissions

• a female police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell and despite calling for help, a police inspector nearby did not come to help even though he could hear her
• the court did not accept this as an omission
• the inspector had assumed responsibility and the chief constable was vicariously liable

Question 12

What case is the omission exception where there is an assumption of responsibility where the defendant has taken on a relationship that creates a positive duty to act? (e.g. through employment)

Answer 12

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999]
- female police officer case

and Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995]
- choked on vomit

Question 13

What did the case of Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] find?

Answer 13

Omission Exception: assumption of responsibility
An assumption of responsibility (e.g. through positive action) may give rise to liability for omissions

• naval pilot became so drunk he collapsed
• the officer on duty ordered the pilot to be taken to bed but nobody stayed to watch the pilot and he choked to death on his vomit
• officers had assumed responsibility by ordering the pilot to be taken to his bed
• damages were reduced by 25% for contributory negligence as the pilot got himself that drunk

Question 14

What authority can be used as the omission exception where you create or adopt a risk - if a defendant accidentally creates a danger, they have a duty to deal with the danger

Answer 14

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997]

- fire fighter did a positive act of turning sprinklers off

Question 15

What is the leading authority that the fire brigade do not owe a duty to the member of the public when carrying out its service

Answer 15

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997]

Question 16

What did the case of Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] find?

Answer 16

Omission exception: creating or adopting a risk may give rise to liability for omissions

• authority that fire brigade don’t owe duty to public
• fire chief turned sprinkler system off on the claimants property [positive act] which allowed the fire to spread more rapidly
• once the chief made this decision he created a risk of danger and then owed a duty to protect the claimant’s property
• fire brigade found liable as more harm was caused from turning sprinklers off than if they were kept on

Question 17

What case can be used for where there is a relationship between the C&D where the D has expressly promised not to do something

Answer 17

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997]

• informant identify leak
• special relationship between c&d

Question 18

What case can be used for where there is a relationship between the C&D where the D has implied promised not to do something

Answer 18

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999]

• woman police officer attacked
• special relationship between c&d

Question 19

What did the case of Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997] find

Answer 19

A special relationship of sufficient proximity between C and D may give rise to negligence liability in respect of the acts of a third party

• claimant was a police informant and made it clear that her safety would be at risk if the criminal were to discover her identity
• police left her information in an unlocked police car
• documents were stolen and the claimant was harassed from which she suffered psychiatric harm
• although the real damage was caused by the criminal, the court held that the police owed the claimant a duty to keep her identity safe
• this has been hard to prove in other cases [Palmer v Tees [1999]]

Question 20

What case held that a special relationship of sufficient proximity between C and D may give rise to negligence liability in respect of the acts of a third party

Answer 20

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997]

- police informant case

Question 21

What case found that finding a special relationship of sufficient proximity between C and D which may give rise to negligence liability in respect of the acts of a third party has proved difficult to establish and a direct undertaking is required

Answer 21

Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999]

• mentally ill patient negligently released and sexually assaulted and killed a child
• health authority not found liable for releasing him

Question 22

What did Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] find?

Answer 22

Finding a special relationship of sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant has proved to be difficult to establish

• health authority negligently assessed and released a mentally ill patient who indicated he had sexual feelings towards children and threatened to abduct and murder child
• on release, the patient kidnapped, sexually assaulted and mutilated the claimants 4 year old daughter who lived on the same street [proximity]
• the court found the health authority didn’t owe either the claimant or her daughter as there wasn’t sufficient proximity between them to give rise to a duty of care capable of extending to the acts of third parties

Question 23

What case found a special (pre-tort) relationship of sufficient proximity between the defendant and the third party may give rise to negligence liability for the acts of the third party?

Answer 23

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970]

- young offenders escaped and caused damage to the claimants yacht

Question 24

What did the case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] find?

Answer 24

A special (pre-tort) relationship of sufficient proximity between the defendant and the third party may give rise to negligence liability for the acts of the third party

• group of young offenders were detained and in the care of the Home Office
• Negligently, the home officer allowed the young offenders to escape and cause damage to the claimants yachts
• there was such a relationship between the offenders and the home office that they should have stopped the offenders from escaping - they did the very thing the home office expected the offenders to do
• held that the supervisory nature of the relationship between the defendants and the young offenders (couples with the high degree of foreseeability of this harm) led the court to conclude that the home officer did owe a duty to the claimants
• the claimants, in order to be successful, had to also show the acts of the offenders didn’t break the chain [it didn’t as their actions were inevitable]

Question 25

What case held that creating a source of danger may give rise to negligence liability for the acts of third parties?

Answer 25

Haynes v Harwood [1936]

• stones threw at horses which caused police officer to be hurt
• owner of horses who left them unattended was found liable as he created a source of danger

Question 26

What was found in Haynes v Harwood [1936]?

Answer 26

Creating a source of danger may give rise to negligence liability for the acts of third parties

• defendant left his horses unattended on a busy street where children then threw rocks at the horse
• a police officer was injured by the horse
• defendant found liable as he had caused the source of the danger which the children ‘sparked’ by throwing stones
• this case contrasts Topp v London Country Bus [1993] where defendant not held to have created a source of danger

Question 27

What was found in Topp v London Country Bus [1993]?

Answer 27

Source of danger did not give rise to negligence liability for the acts of third parties

• defendant who employee had left keys in the ignition of a mini bus outside a pub
• somebody took the bus and drove it carelessly, killing a pedestrian
• was held that the employee had not ‘created a source of danger’
• Haynes was distinguished here

Question 28

What case found that there must be a special type of danger and source of danger to give rise to negligence?

Answer 28

Haynes v Harwood [1936]

• children throwing stones at horses
• defendant found liable for leaving horses out and creating the risk

Topp v London Country Bus [1993]

• keys left in ignition of mini bus which was later carelessly drove by third party and killed a pedestrian
• defendant not liable as they didn’t create a source of danger

Question 29

What case found that failing to abate a danger may give rise to negligence liability for third party acts, but only where the danger is known or foreseeable

Answer 29

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]

• fire caused by vandals in Littlewoods property which spread to the claimants and caused damage
• Littelwoods not liable as they had no knowledge of vandals entering their property

Question 30

What was found in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]

Answer 30

Failing to abate a danger may give rise to negligence liability for third party acts, but only where the danger is known or foreseeable

• fire caused by vandals in a derelict cinema owned by Littlewoods
• the fire spread and damages the claimants property
• held that Littlewoods had no knowledge that vandals would enter the building and cause damage
• however had they been aware vandals were entering their building which would have been a known or foreseeable danger and they may have been liable for the acts of the vandals [found in Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001]]

Question 31

What was found in Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001]

Answer 31

If the defendant had been aware of vandals then they would be liable for third party [vandals] acts

• council were aware of trespassers
• they were held liable for failing to abate the danger they caused
• distinguished Smith v Littlewoods

Question 32

What case can be used where the defendants knew about third party acts where the danger was known or foreseeable

Answer 32

Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2001]

• council knew about trespassers
• council were held liable for failing to abate the danger they caused

Question 33

What was found in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015]

Answer 33

In the context of omissions and third parties, this case highlights the law is inconsistent and not yet certain

• Michael called 999 as her ex bf appeared at her house and already bit her ear and dragged her current bf out
• call handler failed to pass this onto the localised police
• Michael called again but there a scream and then went silent
• police didn’t get to the scene quick enough and Michael was killed
• there was no exception for the police arriving late
• the polices omission essentially led to the injury

Question 34

What case found that in the context of omissions and third parties, this case highlights the law is inconsistent and not yet certain

Answer 34

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015]

• police failed to respond to 999 call of gf calling about ex bf who was then killed
• police arrived late and found liable for their omission