Omissions/acts of third parties

General rule

No liability for pure omissions

Reasons: Deterring rescue, unfairness, intrusiveness (Lord Hoffman, Stovin v Wise)

Outcome if pure omission: No duty. No liability.

Exception: If D's omission makes C worse off, a duty may arise.

Exception 1

Assumption of Responsibility

Did D's conduct (words or actions) create a relationship where C relied on D, or D took control of the situation?

• YES: Duty arises. D must exercise reasonable care in carrying out the assumed task.

  • Barrett v MOD (assisted a drunk soldier).

  • Kent v Griffiths (ambulance service accepted a call).

  • Stansbie v Troman (decorator promised to lock a house).

  • Swinney v CC of Northumbria Police (police accepted information on condition of anonymity).

  • Costello v CC of Northumbria Police (police officer assumed responsibility for a colleague).

• NO: Michael v CC of South Wales Police (taking a 999 call is not an assumption).

Exception 2

Creation of Danger

Did D, through a positive act, create a source of danger that foreseeably leads to C's harm?

• YES: Duty arises to take reasonable steps to avert the danger.

  • Hardy v Brooks (horse escaped onto road).

  • Kane v New Forest DC (council mandated a dangerous road layout).

  • Watson v British Board of Boxing Control (BBBC created the system of boxing).

• Limits (Mitchell v Glasgow City Council): This exception is difficult to apply. The act that creates the danger must be "wrongful." A lawful act that merely provides the "occasion" for a third party to cause harm is not enough.

  • Mitchell (council's meeting with a tenant was lawful; it didn't create danger, just the opportunity for it).

Exception C

Control

Did D have control over a third party (or a thing) that posed a foreseeable risk to a specific claimant or class of claimants?

• YES: Duty arises.

  • Control over a child: Lewis v Carmarthenshire CC.

  • Control over a prisoner/offender: Home Office v Dorset Yacht, Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (duty to prevent self-harm).

  • NO (limits of control): K v Secretary of State for the Home Department (no control over a violent offender in the community), Palmer v Tees HA (no control over a patient not in custody).

Liability for Acts of Third Parties

Smith v Littlewoods Categories

• The law generally does not impose a duty to prevent third parties from causing damage.

• Exceptional Circumstances:

  1. Special Relationship between D and C (Assumption of Responsibility). → Stansbie v Troman.

  2. Special Relationship between D and the Third Party (Control). → Home Office v Dorset Yacht.

  3. D Creates a Source of Danger that a Third Party Ignites. → Haynes v Harwood (horse left unattended), Topp v London Country Bus (bus left unlocked not considered a source of danger).

  4. D Fails to Abate a Known Danger Created by a Third Party. → Goldman v Hargrave (occupier's duty regarding a hazard on their land).