Smith v Littlewoods [1987] AC 241

Basic Facts: Littlewoodss owned a disused cinema. Vandals set a fire that spread to neighboring properties, including Smith’s. Smith sued for negligence.

Issue for the Court: Can a property owner be held liable for failing to secure their property against vandalism that leads to damage to others?

Held: It was held that Littlewoods were not liable because they did not know their land was being misused.

• Lord Mackay of Clashfern (dismissing the appeal):

• Liability for third-party actions arises if a reasonable person would foresee the risk of damage.

• There is no general duty to protect others from vandalism or arson unless there is a specific risk that was foreseeable.

• Lord Goff of Chieveley (dismissing the appeal):

• Liability is not imposed for "pure" omissions.

• Liability may arise if there is a special relationship or if the defendant created a source of danger.

💡Levelup : This shows, at this time, the court did not like omission actions - so the bar was set pretty high.