Stansbie v Troman [1948]
Share
Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48 is a notable tort law case in relation to the duty of care and causation.
A decorator, was working alone at Troman's home. He left the house unattended to purchase wallpaper, leaving the door unlocked for two hours. During his absence, a thief entered the house and stole valuable items. Troman sought to recover the cost of the stolen items from Stansbie.
Stansbie argued that he had no duty to keep the house secure against thieves. He contended that the obligation to secure the property rested with Troman as the house was occupied. Stansbie also claimed that, even if there was a duty on him, the theft by a third party broke the chain of causation. Troman asserted that the contractual agreement imposed a duty on Stansbie to take reasonable care regarding the state of the premises when left unoccupied.
The court held Stansbie liable for the cost of the stolen items. It ruled that Stansbie had a duty to take reasonable care when leaving the premises unoccupied, as per the contractual agreement. Leaving the house unattended for two hours with the door unlocked was considered a failure to exercise reasonable care. The court concluded that the breach of this duty directly resulted in the theft, and therefore, Stansbie was responsible for the losses suffered by Troman.
This case establishes that even in the absence of an express term in the contract regarding security, a party may have an implied duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the property. Stansbie's failure to secure the house was seen as a breach of this duty, leading to the thief's entry and subsequent theft, for which Stansbie was held liable.
A decorator, was working alone at Troman's home. He left the house unattended to purchase wallpaper, leaving the door unlocked for two hours. During his absence, a thief entered the house and stole valuable items. Troman sought to recover the cost of the stolen items from Stansbie.
Stansbie argued that he had no duty to keep the house secure against thieves. He contended that the obligation to secure the property rested with Troman as the house was occupied. Stansbie also claimed that, even if there was a duty on him, the theft by a third party broke the chain of causation. Troman asserted that the contractual agreement imposed a duty on Stansbie to take reasonable care regarding the state of the premises when left unoccupied.
The court held Stansbie liable for the cost of the stolen items. It ruled that Stansbie had a duty to take reasonable care when leaving the premises unoccupied, as per the contractual agreement. Leaving the house unattended for two hours with the door unlocked was considered a failure to exercise reasonable care. The court concluded that the breach of this duty directly resulted in the theft, and therefore, Stansbie was responsible for the losses suffered by Troman.
This case establishes that even in the absence of an express term in the contract regarding security, a party may have an implied duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the property. Stansbie's failure to secure the house was seen as a breach of this duty, leading to the thief's entry and subsequent theft, for which Stansbie was held liable.
