판결 이유
As a general rule, the common law does not impose a duty of care to prevent a third party from causing damage to another. Omissions that permit a third party to harm do not usually ground liability. However, exceptions arise where (a) the defendant has assumed control over the third party; (b) the defendant created or adopted the source of danger on their property which the third party then ignited or set in motion; or (c) the defendant had actual knowledge of a specific risk of fire or other harm and failed to act. Without one of these factors, mere ownership or occupation of property does not give rise to a duty to guard against the independent criminal acts of strangers.
사실관계
Littlewoods bought a cinema and left it empty while planning redevelopment. Vandals broke in and started a fire that spread to neighbouring properties. The owners of those properties sued Littlewoods.
판결 요약
The House of Lords (Lord Keith, Lord Brandon, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay, and Lord Goff, with Lord Goff giving the leading speech) unanimously dismissed the appeal and held Littlewoods not liable. Littlewoods had purchased a cinema with a view to demolition and development. While empty, the premises were repeatedly broken into by vandals. In one incident, vandals started a fire that spread and caused substantial damage to neighbouring cafés owned by the Smiths. Crucially, Littlewoods had not been informed of the earlier break-ins or any fire risk. Lord Goff conducted a comprehensive analysis of the principle that there is no liability in negligence for pure omissions and no duty to control a third party's wrongful acts. He identified the limited exceptions: notably where the defendant has assumed a particular responsibility for the third party's safety, where the defendant has created a source of danger that the third party then activated, or where the defendant knew of a specific risk and failed to act. None of these exceptions applied on the facts. Littlewoods had no knowledge of the specific fire risk from the prior break-ins. Previous vandalism had not involved fire. The damage was not foreseeable in the relevant sense. Lord Mackay, in a shorter judgment, agreed that the key was whether Littlewoods ought reasonably to have known of the fire risk; without such knowledge no duty arose.
주요 인용문
"The common law does not impose a duty on a person to prevent a third party from causing damage to another, save in exceptional circumstances."
— Lord Goff at 270
"A defender will not be liable unless it is shown that he knew or ought to have known that third parties had gained access to the premises and that there was a risk of their causing damage of the kind that in fact occurred."
— Lord Goff at 278
"The crucial question is whether the defenders knew, or ought to have known, of the fire risk arising from the acts of vandals on their premises — and they did not."
— Lord Mackay at 261
후속 처리
Followed as the leading authority on the absence of a general duty to prevent third-party harm. Applied in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, where the House of Lords held that a landlord had no duty to warn a tenant of threats made by a neighbour.
Applied in Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48 as contrasted: where a defendant has assumed responsibility or created the very risk that enabled the third party to cause harm, liability may arise, distinguishing Littlewoods.
Considered in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL), which is distinguished as involving a defendant (the Home Office) who exercised control over the third parties (Borstal boys) who caused the damage.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help