Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241

Littlewoods purchased a cinema intending demolition. Before demolition, vandals broke in and deliberately started a fire which spread to neighbouring properties. The House of Lords held Littlewoods not liable as fire-raising by vandals was not reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances, and there is no general duty to prevent third parties causing damage.

Facts

Littlewoods Organisation Ltd purchased the Regal Cinema in Dunfermline in May 1976, intending to demolish it and build a supermarket. After contractors completed preliminary work in late June 1976, the cinema remained empty and unattended. During this period, children and young persons broke into the building on multiple occasions, overcoming security measures and causing damage inside. On 5 July 1976, teenagers deliberately started a fire in the cinema which engulfed the building and spread to neighbouring properties, causing serious damage to St Paul’s Church (which had to be demolished) and Cafe Maloco.

The owners of the damaged properties sued Littlewoods, alleging negligence in failing to keep the premises secure, inspect regularly, and prevent vandals from entering. Littlewoods’ particulars were displayed on a notice at the premises, but no one informed them or the police about the intruders’ activities or any fire risk.

Issues

The central issue was whether Littlewoods owed a duty of care to take precautions to prevent vandals from entering their premises and starting a fire that might damage neighbouring properties. Specifically:

Was the fire damage reasonably foreseeable?

Could Littlewoods reasonably have anticipated that failure to secure the premises would result in fire being deliberately set by vandals, causing damage to neighbours?

Does a general duty exist to prevent third party wrongdoing?

Is there a general duty upon occupiers to take reasonable care to prevent third parties from causing damage to neighbouring properties?

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeals, affirming the First Division’s decision in favour of Littlewoods.

Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Brandon of Oakbrook agreed with the reasoning of Lords Mackay and Goff. Lord Brandon stated that the general duty owed was to exercise reasonable care to ensure the premises did not become a source of danger, but whether this encompassed preventing vandals starting fires depended on reasonable foreseeability. Without knowledge of the intruders’ activities, such behaviour was not reasonably foreseeable.

Lord Griffiths emphasised that the fire was caused by criminal activity of third parties, and only a 24-hour guard would likely have prevented it. He stated:

“There was nothing of an inherently dangerous nature stored in the premises, nor can I regard an empty cinema stripped of its equipment as likely to be any more alluring to vandals than any other recently vacated premises in the centre of a town.”

Lord Mackay of Clashfern delivered a detailed analysis. He held that since Littlewoods had no actual knowledge of the vandalism or fire attempts, and since the only relevant duty arose from anticipating fire damage to neighbours, the question was whether they should reasonably have anticipated such damage without that knowledge. The fact that no neighbour or police officer reported concerns to Littlewoods, despite their details being publicly displayed, was significant evidence that the risk was not anticipated by anyone.

Lord Goff of Chieveley provided extensive analysis of the principles governing liability for third party wrongdoing. He emphasised:

“It is well recognised that there is no general duty of care to prevent third parties from causing such damage.”

He identified specific circumstances where liability might arise: where the defender creates a source of danger that third parties might spark off; or where the defender has knowledge that third parties are creating a fire risk on his property and fails to take reasonable steps. Neither applied here, as the empty cinema was not an unusual fire hazard and Littlewoods had no means of knowing of any risk created by trespassers.

Implications

This case establishes important principles regarding occupiers’ liability for damage caused by third party wrongdoing:

No general duty to prevent third party wrongdoing

The common law does not impose a general duty to prevent third parties from causing damage to others, even where such damage is foreseeable. Liability requires specific circumstances creating a duty.

Foreseeability alone insufficient

Mere foreseeability of criminal or malicious conduct by third parties does not establish a duty of care. There must be a reasonable probability, not merely a bare possibility, of harm occurring.

Knowledge requirement

Where liability is based on failure to abate a danger created by third parties, the occupier must have knowledge or means of knowledge of the danger before a duty arises.

Practical limitations on liability

The law will not impose unreasonable burdens on ordinary property owners. People are not required to mount 24-hour guards on vacant properties in ordinary circumstances.

The decision confirms that occupiers of property are entitled to use their property without being held liable as watchdogs for their neighbours, whilst recognising that special circumstances may give rise to liability where dangerous conditions are created or known to exist.

Verdict: Appeals dismissed. The House of Lords affirmed the First Division's interlocutors, holding that Littlewoods were not liable in negligence for the fire damage to neighbouring properties caused by vandals, as it was not reasonably foreseeable that failure to secure the premises would result in a fire being deliberately started. The appellants were ordered to pay Littlewoods' costs.

Source: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241