Smith v Littlewoods [1987] AC 241 Case Summary

KEY POINTS

Negligence refers to situations where a duty of care arises.
The duty of an occupier entails a responsibility to ensure the safety of their premises for visitors or guests. The duty of care towards neighbors includes taking reasonable steps to prevent harm or damage to adjoining properties.
The extent of liability in negligence cases varies depending on the circumstances and the level of care exercised by the defendant.
In damage to adjoining premises, an occupier may be held liable if their negligence or failure to maintain their property harms or damages neighboring properties.
Negligence claims can arise from damage caused by an unauthorized act of a third party. In such cases, liability may depend on foreseeability and the reasonable measures taken to prevent or mitigate the harm caused by the third party's actions.

Vandals started a fire at a cinema, damaging nearby properties. The cinema owners faced negligence allegations in court. The UK's House of Lords ruled that there isn't a universal duty to prevent intentional harm caused by third parties. They clarified that a general obligation to anticipate harm from third-party wrongdoing isn't automatically assumed.
The Lords highlighted the impracticality of creating a one-size-fits-all rule for cases where negligence involves unauthorized acts by independent third parties on premises owned or occupied by the responsible party. Each situation should be assessed individually.
The house determined that the cinema owners couldn't have reasonably foreseen the fire caused by vandals due to the absence of prior knowledge about their repeated intrusion and attempts to start fires. As a result, the cinema owners weren't inherently obligated to prevent the vandals' access or their unlawful fire-starting.

The distinguished House found that the cinema owners cannot be held in breach of their general duty of care owing to the absence of a foreseeable nexus between their actions and the unfortunate fire incident.
Consequently, the allegations of negligence brought against them were not substantiated, and the case was ruled in favor of the cinema owners.

In negligence cases involving third-party harm, based on duty of care responsibilities like ensuring premises' safety and preventing harm to neighbors. Liability varies based on circumstances and care level. The case involves vandals causing fire damage.
The House of Lords ruled no universal duty to prevent third-party intentional harm, favoring case-by-case evaluation. Lords found cinema owners couldn't foresee fire due to no prior knowledge, absolving them of negligence. Unique circumstances dictate liability in negligence cases.

R bought a building that he intended to demolish. Some children got in several times and eventually started a fire that caused damage to Plaintiff’s adjoining property. Plaintiff said that since R had failed to provide security for the building, it was Plaintiff’s negligence that caused the damage to the adjoining property.
HL said R was not liable since it was not “reasonable” to foresee an empty building as a fire hazard and R had no known of the children’s previous attempts to set fire to the building. Therefore there could not be no duty of care was owed.
NB Anns still in effect in 1987 and therefore “proximity” was being judged mainly by whether the damage to Plaintiff should have been “reasonably foreseeable” to R.

There are special circumstances where R can be liable for the acts of 3rd parties: Where there is either a special relationship between R and the third party OR between R and the victim.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch