Law of Torts: Omissions and Acts of Third Parties
Terms in this set (37)
Smith v Littlewoods
'The common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions'.
Wright v Lodge
If you create a dangerous situation regardless of whether if it was intended or not, you should take reasonable steps to prevent danger taking place
Kelly v Metropolitan Ry Co
[The] proper description of what was done was that it was a negligent act in so managing the train as to allow it to come into contact with the dead-end.
Stovin v Wise
Duty to act if one has undertaken to do so or induced a person to rely on one doing so.
Capital and Countries PLC v Hampshire CC
Although a doctor who happened to witness a road accident may likely assist they have no legal obligation to do so.
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire Police
The distinction between careless acts causing personal injury...and careless omissions to prevent acts (by other agencies) causing personal injury...is inherent in the nature of the tort of negligence
East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent
Since the damage done by flooding was not due to the exercise of D's statutory powers, but to the forces of nature - C would've have suffered regardless if D did something or not.
OLL v Secretary of State for Transport
Misdirections given to both their own helicopters and the Royal Navy. Were liable for the Royal Navy.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
Introduced the 'but for' test. Would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the defendant? If yes, the defendant is not liable.
Kent v Griffiths
Late ambulance - foreseeable harm.
Goldman v Hargrave
An occupier's duty of care to a visitor under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and to a neighbouring occupier can require the occupier to take positive steps to control a natural danger on his land.
Kasapis v Laimos
An employer must not only take proper steps to ensure safety in the workplace but must look after a worker who is injured or falls ill at work, even if the employer is not responsible for the emergency - regardless of whether it occurred during work
Horsley v MacLaren
A carrier's duty to a passenger may involve taking positive action.
Marc Rich v Bishop Rock
A parent or school owes an affirmative duty to take care to prevent harm to a child.
Ellis v Home Office
A custodial authority has a positive duty to take reasonable care to protect an inmate from injury by a fellow inmate.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
The police/prison authorities have a positive duty to take precautions to protect a detainee from himself, where they ought to be aware of the detainee's suicidal tendency.
Orange v CC West Yorkshire
Whilst the police and prison authorities have a specific obligation to assess whether or not a detainee presents a suicide risk, the duty of care to prevent a detainee committing suicide only arises where they knew or ought to have known that the individual prisoner presented such a risk.
Everett v Comojo
The management of a nightclub owe a duty of care to guests of a member in respect of the actions of third parties on the premises.
Barrett v MOD
Soldiers gave up helping their drunk friend who died after choking on his own vomit. They where found liable as they had voluntarily assumed responsibility.
Nb - position unclear if parties are strangers
Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts
D was liable when it had supplied C with equipment to take part in a ski-race as well as supplying him with drink.
Calvert v William Hill
The bookies had no responsibility to do this. Whilst bookmakers owed no general duty of care to safeguard punters from the risks of gambling, in this case D had expressly assumed a responsibility to C to exclude C from telephone gambling with them for 6 months. However, the scope of D's duty did not extend to preventing C from gambling with D in other ways, or with other bookmakers.
Bromley LBC v Ellis
A gratuitous insurance agent who had undertaken to act for a car owner was liable for failing to warn the car owner that his policy had been cancelled.
Mercer v SE & Chatham
A railway (D) was liable for failing to lock an access gate to a line crossing with the result that C (a pedestrian) crossed the line and was hit by a train. D was under no general duty to lock the access gate but its practice of keeping it locked when a train was passing induced the public to believe that it was safe to cross when the access was unlocked.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Police released a suspect who went onto murder C's daughter. Unsuccessful - police do not owe a duty of care in detection of crime - had no reason to believe was exposed to risk.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
It was confirmed that, in the absence of special circumstances, there is no liability 'in cases of pure omission by the police to perform their duty for the prevention of violence', per Lord Toulson. The woman had simply been informed that her call would be passed on to the South Wales police, but was given no assurance about how quickly they would respond.
Stansbie v Troman
By telling the C that he would lock up he's assumed the responsibility if anything where to happen if he didn't lock up.
Swinney v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police
It was arguable that a special relationship existed between C and the police so that C was distinguishable from the general public as a person particularly at risk. It was also arguable that, on the particular facts, the police had voluntarily assumed a responsibility to C to maintain confidentiality.
Costello v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Police
The inspector had assumed a responsibility to C and therefore could owe C a duty of care: 'They were close colleagues and he was in close attendance for the specific purpose of coming to her help if she needed help. It would not therefore follow from this analysis that I would also have found a duty of care owed by a police officer to a member of the public in otherwise similar circumstances.' Per May LJ.
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council
The council did not owe a duty of care to warn Mitchell that its meeting with Drummond was taking place so that he could avoid the danger posed by Drummond. The council's duty as landlord did not extend to warning tenants of steps taken to evict other tenants. Neither was there evidence that the council had assumed responsibility for Mitchell's safety.
Selwood v Durham CC
Although there was no express assumption of responsibility by the Trusts, a duty of care was owed by them to C. Particularly in view of their close working relationship, it was possible to infer from the circumstances an assumption of responsibility by the Trusts to do what was reasonable to reduce or avoid any foreseeable risk of harm to which an employee of a co-signatory was exposed in the course of their joint enterprise with the local authority.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
D may be liable for acts of third parties if they are in a position of control over the third party
Carmathenshire CC v Lewis
A duty of care was owed by D - the age of the child and the proximity to the road meant that failure by D to exercise proper control over the child would clearly endanger others.
Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California
A psychiatrist was under a duty to a person named by his patient as the patient's intended victim, either to control the conduct of the patient to prevent him from causing harm, or at least to warn of his threat.
Palmer v Tees HA
In America the Tarasoff duty was limited to identified potential victims. No such duty would be owed where D knew his patient was a danger to children, but not any particular, identified child.
Haynes v Harwood
There is a duty of care towards rescuers when in an emergency - policeman rescuing horse
Topp v London Country Bus Ltd
The CA approved the reasoning of the trial judge, May J, that although it was foreseeable that the minibus might be stolen, and the thief might injure other road users, 'a parked minibus is no more a source of danger than every other vehicle on the road.'
Thomas Graham v Church of Scotland
Occupiers of a disused church who knew that vandals had repeatedly entered, and lit fires were held liable for damage to neighbouring property caused by a fire spreading from the church. The was an occupier of the church and didn't know about the previous fires.