Deck 4: Special Duty Problems: Omissions and Acts of Third Parties

Question 1

In which of the circumstances outlined below is there an omission to which liability might potentially attach?

A) A small boy falls into a lake and a passer-by jumps in to try and save him, but is unable to and the boy drowns.
B) A small boy falls into a lake and a passer by jumps in to try and save him, but inadvertently pulls the boy under the water. The boy drowns.
C) A man is walking along the road engrossed in his newspaper - he is about to step off the curb into the path of an oncoming bus. Another person sees this about to happen, but does nothing.
D) A father takes his child to the park. On the way there he notices the child about to run out on the road, into the path of an oncoming bus, but does nothing

Answer 1

D

Question 2

What reasons have been given to justify the principle that no duty of care is owed in respect of mere omissions?
Please select all that apply.

A) Such a duty may apply to a many people who happen to be able to do something - why should one be liable any more than others?
B) Such a duty may apply to an indeterminate group of people who might happen to be able to do something in the circumstances but who could not be clearly defined before the situation arose.
C) It would be impossible for there to be a workable law imposing a duty of care in respect of omissions - essentially a duty to act.
D) There is no justification for requiring a person who is not doing anything in particular to spend money or time on behalf of someone else.

Answer 2

A,B,D

Question 3

Parents always owe a duty of care to children in their care, even in respect of what would otherwise be regarded as pure omissions.

Answer 3

True
Explanation: The statement is true. The principle was confirmed (in the context of a claim against a school) in Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis [1955] and is based on the existence of a special pre-tort relationship between the parties. Note it is the care relationship, rather than the biological relationship, that delineates the duty.

Question 4

Complete this quote, taken from Beldam LJ's speech in Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995], showing why the Court of Appeal thought that the MOD did owe Barrett a duty of care. 'Until he collapsed, I would hold that the deceased was in law alone responsible for his condition. Thereafter, when the defendant _____ _____ for him, it accepts that the measures taken fell short of the standard reasonably to be expected. It did not summon medical assistance and its supervision of him was inadequate'.

Question 5

It is problematic to find that a duty of care is owed in negligence in respect of third parties. Who is the third party in the following situation?
X fails to adequately supervise Y, with the result that Y does something to injure Z.

A) X
B) Y
C) Z

Question 6

The law on whether there is, or can be, a duty with respect to the actions of third parties is closely related to the law on causation.

Question 7

In Smith v Littlewoods Ltd [1987]), Lord Goff suggested that outside of the general exclusionary rule, a duty of care can arise in respect of the actions of a third party in four clearly-defined types of situation. What are they?

A) where D has a degree of 'control' over the third party
B) where C has a degree of 'control' over the third party
C) where D and C have a special relationship
D) where C and the third party have a special relationship
E) where the third party has created a danger which D is aware of but does nothing about
F) where a third party 'sparks' a danger that was originally created by D
G) where C and the third party were strangers

Question 8

What is the best explanation of why no duty of care was found in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation [1987]?

A) The House of Lords would not find a duty of care as the actions of the third parties were unforeseeable to the defendant.
B) The third party's actions broke the chain of causation.
C) The defendant had omitted to do anything about the third party, but there is no general duty in respect of omissions.

Question 9

Why did the claimants lose in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999]?

A) Because the defendants had not acted unreasonably
B) Because the defendants had not caused the claimants' harms
C) Because there was no proximity between the defendants and the claimants