Failure to prevent third party causing harm - part 1 (Duty of care - Negligence)-FS

Question 1

What is the general rule about a duty of care in relation to acts of third parties?

Answer 1

There is no general duty of care to prevent a third party causing harm to the claimant.

Question 2

What kind of situation was considered in Smith v Littlewoods?

Answer 2

Damage caused by a fire started by unknown third-party intruders on the defendant’s land.

Question 3

Why was no duty of care found in Smith v Littlewoods?

Answer 3

Because the specific danger from third-party vandals was not reasonably foreseeable and there was no reason to suspect such intrusion.

Question 4

What four circumstances did Smith v Littlewoods identify where a duty to prevent third-party harm can arise?

Answer 4

A special relationship between defendant and claimant; a special relationship between defendant and third party; the defendant creates the danger; the defendant fails to prevent a known danger.

Question 5

In principle terms, how can a special relationship between defendant and claimant give rise to a duty regarding third-party harm?

Answer 5

The relationship (for example, contractual) can impose a duty on the defendant to take reasonable care to protect the claimant from third-party acts.

Question 6

In relation to third-party acts, when can a contractual relationship between a defendant and a claimant create a duty of care?

Answer 6

When the contract places the defendant in a position of responsibility over the claimant’s property or safety, requiring reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable third-party harm.

Question 7

In principle terms, how can a special relationship between defendant and third party create a duty to protect claimants?

Answer 7

Where the defendant has control or supervision over the third party and therefore a responsibility to take reasonable care that the third party does not cause foreseeable harm to others.

Question 8

What two elements typically support liability where the defendant has supervisory control over a third party?

Answer 8

Sufficient proximity to the potential victims and reasonable foreseeability that the supervised third party might cause that type of harm if not properly controlled.

Question 9

How does the defendant creates the danger category differ from the pure third-party relationship categories?

Answer 9

It focuses on the defendant’s role in creating or adopting a dangerous situation that third parties then exploit, rather than on a specific relationship with the claimant or third party.

Question 10

What is the principle behind the fails to prevent a known danger category?

Answer 10

A duty may arise where the defendant knows of a specific danger and unreasonably fails to take steps to prevent foreseeable harm from that danger, including harm caused via third-party acts.

Question 11

When will a defendant generally not owe a duty to prevent harm caused by third-party intruders on their property?

Answer 11

Where the specific danger from third-party intrusion is not reasonably foreseeable and there is no prior reason, such as a history of similar incidents, to suspect such interference.