Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] UKHL 18

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Littlewoods Organisation Ltd purchased a cinema with plans to demolish it and build a supermarket. After some initial work, the cinema was left unattended and became a target for vandals and children. Vandals subsequently started a fire that destroyed the cinema and caused damage to neighboring properties. The neighboring property owners sued Littlewoods for negligence, claiming that the company had failed to adequately secure or inspect the cinema to prevent such incidents.

Issue: Whether Littlewoods Organisation Ltd could be held liable for the damage caused to neighboring properties due to a fire started by vandals, given the company's failure to secure the vacant cinema.

Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeals, ruling that Littlewoods was not liable for the damages. The court held that foreseeability of damage alone was insufficient to establish a duty of care. There must be a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer to impose liability. The judgment emphasized that the law does not recognize a general duty of care to prevent harm caused by the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties. The court found that the cinema was not inherently dangerous and that requiring Littlewoods to have a 24-hour guard on the premises would impose an unreasonable burden.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Keith stated, "A duty of care cannot be imposed merely on the basis of foreseeability of harm from the wrongdoing of third parties. There must be a specific relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer that establishes a duty to prevent such harm."

💡 LevelUpLaw: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd establishes that there is no general duty of care to prevent damage caused by the deliberate acts of third parties. Foreseeability alone does not suffice to impose liability; a closer relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer is necessary. This case underscores the limitations on holding parties liable for pure omissions and sets clear boundaries on the extent of negligence claims involving third-party actions.