Negligence - Failure to prevent third-party harm

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Negligence involving the failure to prevent harm by third parties is a vital aspect of tort law, especially relevant for the SQE1 FLK1 exam. This topic challenges traditional duty of care boundaries by examining when individuals or entities might be liable for others' actions. The article examines the legal framework, exceptions, and landmark cases that form the current approach to third-party harm in negligence claims.

The General Rule on Omissions

At the core of negligence law concerning third-party harm is the principle that there is no obligation to act to prevent harm to others, known as the "no duty to rescue" rule in English common law.

Legal Basis

This principle was explained in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241, where Lord Goff stated:

"The common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions... The reason for this distinction may be said to lie in... the law's concern to preserve the liberty of the individual."

This reflects tension between individual autonomy and societal responsibility, generally respecting personal freedom even if inaction causes harm.

Policy Considerations

Several policies support this principle:

  1. Liberty Preservation: A general duty to act could infringe personal freedom.
  2. Practical Challenges: Identifying who should act might lead to unfair outcomes.
  3. Moral Hazard: A duty to rescue may discourage personal responsibility.
  4. Economic Efficiency: The costs of imposing such a duty might outweigh societal benefits.

Exceptions to the General Rule

Although the general rule against liability for omissions is fundamental, the law has developed several exceptions, acknowledging circumstances where it's fair to require action to prevent third-party harm.

1. Special Relationships

Some relationships mandate a duty to prevent harm by third parties, based on control and dependency.

Key Principles

  • The duty stems from the relationship's nature, not voluntary responsibility.
  • The relationship involves control or dependency.
  • The duty requires reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.

Examples

  1. Employer-Employee: In Mattis v Pollock [2003] EWCA Civ 887, a nightclub owner was liable for a bouncer injuring a patron, as the employer-employee relationship created a preventive duty.

  2. School-Student: Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 7 confirmed schools must protect students from bullying, recognizing control over the environment.

  3. Prison-Prisoner: In Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360, prison authorities were liable for not preventing prisoner self-harm, given their control over inmates.

2. Assumption of Responsibility

When someone voluntarily takes responsibility for another’s safety, a duty to prevent harm, including third-party harm, is established.

Key Principles

  • Must be clear and unmistakable.
  • Can be implied from circumstances.
  • The claimant must have relied on this responsibility.

Example: Voluntary Undertaking

In Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48, a decorator was liable for theft after leaving a house unlocked, having assumed responsibility for its security.

3. Creation or Control of Danger

This applies when someone creates or controls a danger, imposing a duty to prevent third-party exploitation.

Key Principles

  • Danger must be foreseeable and controllable.
  • Duty includes protecting against foreseeable third-party actions.
  • Duty extent varies with the danger's nature and degree.

Example: Dangerous Premises

In Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146, the defendant was liable when an unattended horse-drawn van injured a policeman, having created a dangerous situation.

The Caparo Test

The Caparo test, from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, helps determine a duty of care's existence in new situations, evaluating policy factors and party relationships.

Three-Stage Test

  1. Foreseeability: Was harm predictable?
  2. Proximity: Is there a close relationship between parties?
  3. Fairness: Is it fair to impose a duty?

Application

In third-party harm cases, courts assess:

  • Defendant's control over the situation or person.
  • Claimant vulnerability.
  • Duty impact on defendant's activities.
  • Social value of defendant's actions.

Example: Caparo Test in Action

In Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, the court applied the Caparo test to decide whether a local authority owed a tenant warning duty, ultimately finding it unfair to impose due to limited control.

Breaking the Chain of Causation: Novus Actus Interveniens

The concept of novus actus interveniens—an unexpected intervening act—can sever the causation chain between negligence and injury.

Key Principles

  • Act must be unforeseeable and significant enough to nullify wrongdoing.
  • Considers whether third-party actions were within the risk caused by negligence.
  • Severe negligence decreases the likelihood of a chain-break.

Example

In Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349, a police officer's injury was due to his own contrary action, breaking the causation chain from the original accident.

Conclusion

Negligence law regarding third-party harm is complex, balancing personal freedom and societal duty. Understanding these complexities is key for SQE1 FLK1 exam candidates:

  1. General rule against liability for omissions.
  2. Key exceptions: special relationships, assumed responsibility, and danger control.
  3. Application of principles.