⇒ 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]

• In other words, the law has not been overly willing to impose liability for neglgience on someone who has simply omitted to act in a situation
• There are four exceptions to this general rule of non-liability for mere omissions - see below

⇒ 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:

1. The Defendant has a special relationship with the Claimant
2. The Defendant has a special relationship with a Third Party
3. The Defendant has created the danger that is sparked off by a Third Party
4. The Defendant fails to take reasonable steps to abate a danger created by a Third Party

⇒ 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])

⇒ 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

• See, for example, Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]

⇒ 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?

• Fire: Capital and Counties PLC v Hampshire County Council [1997]
• Coast Guard: O.L.L. Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [1997]
• Ambulance Services: Kent v Griffith [2001]

⇒ 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"