Problem Category: Pure Omissions

Question 1

Smith v Littlewoods

Answer 1

General rule - no liability for pure omissions.

Question 2

Positive duty imposed by statute

Answer 2

No authority

Question 3

Non-performance of contractual duty/obligation

Answer 3

No authority

Question 4

Where defendant holds degree of control over claimant

Answer 4

Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Principle? Duty existed on police to protect prisoner’s health including possibility they might attempt suicide. Police had high degree of control over victim (in custody); likelihood of suicide well documented. Owed duty to take steps to prevent this.

• Precedent for police owing duty to prevent someone in their custody from causing him/herself harm.

Question 5

Assumption of responsibility (Costello)

Answer 5

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria

• Employer was police force.
• Owed duty of care to one of their officers who was attacked by prisoner whilst fellow officer failed to assist.
• He had agreed to stand close by whilst Costello visited this prisoner.

Question 6

Assumption of responsibility (Barrett)

Answer 6

Facts? Naval pilot got drunk. Fellow officer started helping him, then left him unattended and he choked to death on own vomit.

Principle? Once fellow officer started helping him, D had assumed responsibility for his welfare - owed duty of care.

Question 7

Creation of a dangerous situation

Answer 7

Stansbie v Troman

• D created dangerous situation by leaving front door unlocked.
• Foreseeable that someone could come in and cause loss if he did not lock it.
• Proximate relationship (painter and claimant).
• Fair, just and reasonable - maintain high standards.