Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241

Owners of a derelict cinema were sued after vandals started a fire that damaged neighbouring property. The House of Lords held the owners were not liable, establishing there is no general duty of care to prevent harm caused by third parties' deliberate wrongdoing.

Facts

The defenders, Littlewoods Organisation Ltd, purchased a cinema in Hamilton in 1976 with the intention of demolishing it and replacing it with a supermarket. While awaiting the necessary permissions, the cinema was left unoccupied and unattended. The property was frequently broken into by children and vandals, a fact known to the defenders’ employees. However, the defenders were not aware that vandals had previously started small fires inside the building. On 5 July 1976, vandals started a fire which spread and caused significant damage to two neighbouring properties, a café and a billiard saloon, and a church, which were owned by the pursuer, Mr Smith.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether an occupier of property owes a duty of care to the owners or occupiers of neighbouring property for loss caused by the deliberate wrongful act of a third party (a trespasser) on the occupier’s property. The court had to determine the circumstances in which such a duty might arise, focusing on the degree of foreseeability required to establish liability for an omission to prevent such an act.

Judgment

The House of Lords, allowing the appeal, held that Littlewoods were not liable for the damage. The court reasoned that there is no general duty of care in delict or tort to prevent persons from causing damage to others, which includes a duty to prevent a third party from causing damage to a neighbour’s property by an act of deliberate wrongdoing. However, the Law Lords acknowledged that such a duty could arise in special circumstances.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern stated the general principle and the specific context of the case:

In my opinion, the situation of the present defenders is not one in which a special relationship existed between them and the pursuers nor is it one in which they had a special relationship with the young persons who started the fire. Accordingly, in my opinion, the only basis on which the pursuers can succeed is if the defenders are responsible for a state of danger which they have created or allowed to be created on their property by the acts of third parties and which results in damage to the pursuers’ adjoining property.

Lord Goff of Chieveley provided a highly influential analysis of the exceptions to the general rule that there is no liability for pure omissions. He identified circumstances where a duty to act might be imposed, including:

• Where there is a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, or the defendant and the third party.
• Where the defendant negligently creates a source of danger which is then ‘sparked off’ by a third party.
• Where the defendant knows or ought to know that a third party is creating a danger on their land and fails to take reasonable steps to abate it.

Applying these principles, the majority found that Littlewoods’ conduct did not fall into any of the exceptional categories. While the empty cinema provided an opportunity for vandals, it did not in itself create an unusual source of danger. Crucially, the defenders had no knowledge of previous acts of fire-raising by vandals in the cinema. Therefore, the specific hazard of a fire that could spread to adjoining properties was not something they should have reasonably foreseen as a probable consequence of their omission to secure the building more thoroughly. Lord Goff concluded:

In the present case, we are not concerned with a case of vicarious liability, or with a special relationship between the defenders and the third parties, or with a special relationship between the defenders and the pursuers. We are concerned with the liability of an occupier of property for the criminal acts of third parties; and the special feature of the case is that the source of danger was not created by the defenders. The question is whether the defenders, who were not responsible for the source of danger, are liable for its consequences. In my opinion, they are not, unless the danger was known or foreseeable… I do not consider that the defenders should, in the circumstances of the present case, have reasonably foreseen the outbreak of fire with which we are here concerned.

Implications

The decision is a landmark authority on liability for omissions and the acts of third parties in the law of negligence (delict in Scotland). It clarifies that foreseeability of harm alone is not sufficient to create a duty of care; there must be a closer ‘proximity’ or a special relationship between the parties. The judgment establishes that an occupier is generally not liable for the unforeseen criminal acts of trespassers unless they have created or adopted a specific source of danger on their land. It significantly limits the duty of property owners to protect their neighbours from criminal damage originating on their property, requiring a high degree of foreseeability of the specific type of damage that occurs.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The defenders, Littlewoods Organisation Ltd, were held not to be liable.

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