Omissions and public authorities Flashcards
(41 cards)
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.
assumption of safeguard (ambulance)
Kent V Griffiths (Asthma sufferer, who has a heart attack rings ambulance and is told the ambulance is on the way, but it never shows up and he dies. If he had been told the ambulance was not coming he could have gone by care and arrived in time so he could have been treated.) It was held that there was a duty of acre because they have assumed a responsibility and C relied upon them to his detriment.
Case where a mother has assumed responsibility for her children
Surtees v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames: (C sued his mother for failure to protect him from his violent father.) Court held there is an assumption of responsibility, but it was not reasonable to rely on this duty, because she was also suffering mental and physical abuse.
Not reasonable to rely on this
What are non-delegable duties
Particulal type of duty e..g employer-employee, prison-prisoner, education authority-child. Such duties may be breached through an omission
Case for non-delegable duties involving swimming teacher
Woodland V Swimming Teacher Associtaion (swimming lessons at her school, the school contract out the lessons to a swimming teacher and a lifeguard, neither do their job and claimant is seriously injured because they begin to drown and are not rescued quickly enough. If there a non-delegable
What was the criteria Lord Sumption set out for non-delegable duties
1) The claimant is especially vulnerable or dependent on the protection of the defendant
2) There is an antecedent relationship between the claimant and the defendant, which places the claimant in the actual custody, charge or care of the defendant, and from which it is possible to impute to the defendant the assumption of a positive duty to protect the claimant from harm
3) The claimant has no control over how the defendant chooses to perform those obligations
4) The defendant has delegated to a third party some function which is an integral part of the positive duty which he has assumed towards the claimant
5) The third party has been negligent in the performance of the very function assumed by the defendant and delegated by the defendant to him.
Case where it was held the duty was delegable so could not be liable
NA V Nottinghamshire CC (Do the CC owe a duty to foster children who are placed with abusive fosters? It was held that the duty was delegable, they should sue the foster parents not the council.
Assuming resposbilty- solicitor client case
White V Jones
What must be considered before imposing liability on LA
the court will consider the consequences of the precedent it will set if a duty of care is owed by this type of defendant.
