⇒ The law takes a restrictive approach to imposing liability in relation to omissions: see the cases of Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] and Stovin v Wise [1996]
⇒ Stovin v Wise [1996]: the House of Lords held (3:2) that the public body in the case was not liable for their omission. It was said the public body had the power to act but not a duty to act.
⇒ Gorringe v Calderdale [2004]: the local authority was not held to be liable for their omission
⇒ Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009]: the council was not held to be liable for their omission
⇒ In other words, Lord Goff in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] listed 4 scenarios where someone (i.e. a defendant) will be guilty of negligence where there has been an omission:
⇒ So a defendant may be liable for an omission where the claimant is dependent on them
⇒ For example, a child is dependent on their parents. So, a parent may be liable for an omission to act in a situation involving their child
⇒ Also, a school may be liable for railing to safeguard pupils against injury or meeting educational needs: Carty v Croydon London Borough Council [2005]
⇒ A mental hospital may be liable for an omissions to act in a situation involving a patient (Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2010])
FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades
SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know
INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job
We work really hard to provide you with incredible law notes for free...
The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE!
⇒ Fowles v Bedfordshire CC [1995]: gym instructor's omission was enough to establish liability
⇒ Barret v Ministry of Defence [1995]: the MOD were liable when people moved a drunk guy out of the room they were in and later died
⇒ If the defendant has a special relationship with a third party, who cause some kind of damage, then the defendant may be liable for their actions (despit not actually doing anything)
⇒ For example, in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club [1970], the defendant was liable as they had a relationship of control over the third parties (young male offenders) who caused damage to a boat
⇒ See, for example, the case of Haynes v Harwood [1935] for the best demonstration of this
⇒ The general rule is that there is no duty of care to prevent others from causing damage
⇒ However, see the case of Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley Metropolitan BC [2001]
⇒ There is one question that still must be coveredL are the safety services (i.e. fire, police, ambulance, coastguards) liable when they muck up?
⇒ Conaghan and Mansell are highly critical with the law in relation to emergency services → "These decisions are troubling because of a sense we have that rescue services ought to be responsible if they do not do their job properly"
Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers.
✅ 60+ page eBook
✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more!
✅ Help keep Digestible Notes FREE