Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]
Share
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] UKHL 18 is a notable English tort law case dealing with the issue of duty of care in the context of the tort of negligence, specifically focusing on the potential liability of a party for the wrongdoing of third parties.
Littlewoods Organisation Ltd purchased a cinema with the intention of demolishing it and building a supermarket. The cinema was left unattended after some initial work, and it became a target for vandals and children. Vandals started a fire that eventually burned down the cinema, causing damage to neighbouring buildings. The neighbours brought a negligence claim against Littlewoods, alleging a failure to take reasonable care of the cinema by not having it regularly inspected or secured.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeals, affirming that Littlewoods was not liable for the damages. The court held that the mere foreseeability of damage was not enough to establish liability. There must be a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer to impose a duty of care. The judgment emphasised that the law does not recognise a general duty of care to prevent others from suffering loss or damage caused by the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties. The court noted that a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer is necessary to establish such a duty. The court considered that there was nothing inherently dangerous about an empty cinema, and the only way to prevent a fire would be to have a 24-hour guard on the premises—an intolerable burden to impose on the owners.
The case is significant for establishing the principle that there is no general duty of care to prevent harm caused by the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties. Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to impose liability, and a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer is required. The judgment underscores the limits of imposing liability for damages caused by the intentional acts of third parties and reinforces the principle of not holding parties liable for pure omissions.
Littlewoods Organisation Ltd purchased a cinema with the intention of demolishing it and building a supermarket. The cinema was left unattended after some initial work, and it became a target for vandals and children. Vandals started a fire that eventually burned down the cinema, causing damage to neighbouring buildings. The neighbours brought a negligence claim against Littlewoods, alleging a failure to take reasonable care of the cinema by not having it regularly inspected or secured.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeals, affirming that Littlewoods was not liable for the damages. The court held that the mere foreseeability of damage was not enough to establish liability. There must be a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer to impose a duty of care. The judgment emphasised that the law does not recognise a general duty of care to prevent others from suffering loss or damage caused by the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties. The court noted that a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer is necessary to establish such a duty. The court considered that there was nothing inherently dangerous about an empty cinema, and the only way to prevent a fire would be to have a 24-hour guard on the premises—an intolerable burden to impose on the owners.
The case is significant for establishing the principle that there is no general duty of care to prevent harm caused by the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties. Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to impose liability, and a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer is required. The judgment underscores the limits of imposing liability for damages caused by the intentional acts of third parties and reinforces the principle of not holding parties liable for pure omissions.
