Stansbie v Troman [1948]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The plaintiff, Troman, had hired the decorator Stansbie to work at his home. Stansbie left the house unattended for two hours to purchase wallpaper, leaving the door unlocked. During his absence, a thief entered the house and stole valuable items. Troman sought to recover the cost of the stolen items from Stansbie, arguing that Stansbie had failed in his duty to secure the property.

Issue: The central issue was whether Stansbie had a duty to take reasonable care to secure the premises when left unoccupied and, if so, whether his failure to do so was a proximate cause of the theft.

Held: The Court of Appeal held that Stansbie was liable for the loss of the stolen items. The court found that Stansbie had a duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to the security of the premises while he was responsible for them. By leaving the house unattended with the door unlocked for an extended period, Stansbie failed to fulfill this duty. The breach of this duty was deemed to have directly contributed to the theft.

Key Judicial Statement: The court emphasized that even in the absence of an express contractual term requiring security measures, there was an implied duty on Stansbie to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm. The court observed, "A contractor who leaves a house unoccupied must take reasonable steps to safeguard the premises from foreseeable risks. Stansbie’s failure to secure the house breached this duty and directly resulted in the theft."

💡 LevelUpLaw: Stansbie v Troman underscores the principle that a party to a contract has an implied duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm, even if specific terms about security are not expressly stated. It highlights the importance of maintaining reasonable precautions to avoid liability for damages caused by third-party actions when the party’s negligence facilitates those actions