1.

General rule
Omissions to act:

No duty of care for a mere omission- per Lord Hoffman in Stovin v Wise at [943]

 Strictness of application of rule can be seen in Michael.

 Note: As per Lord Nichols in dissent in Stovin, distinction between acts and omissions is
sometimes unclear. In Michael was arguably a positive act, as police answered victims call
and categorised it incorrectly. However, this was treated as an omission. In contrast,
Rushbond Plc v JS Design Partnership LLP looks like an omissions case; D opened a building.
Turned off an alarm system, and forgot to put it back on whilst they went on tour. This was
held to be a positive act when the building burnt down. Lord Nicholls in his dissent in Stovin
explained distinction as whether the omission is ‘part of a larger course of activity set in
motion by the defendant’.
 Useful distinction given by Lunney and Oliphant: difference between ‘making things worse’
which normally brings liability, and ‘failure to make things better’ which is treated as a mere
omission.

Acts of a third party:

No duty of care to prevent a third party from causing harm, no matter how foreseeable it is
[Mitchell-case of Mr Mitchell who was killed by violent neighbour, who has been notified by council
he was to be evicted following numerous complaints by Mr Mitchell. Policy reasoning was used in
this case {that it was not fair just and reasonable to impose a DO, would be too much of a burden on
local authorities, and costly} this would no longer be required following Robinson] also applied in
Smith v Littlewood [case where D had bought cinema to turn into a supermarket, which was burnt
down by vandals]

 Strictness of application of rule can be seen in Poole [case of two vulnerable children placed
in home next to anti-social neighbours who were renown for their anti social behaviour]

Public authorities:
Omissions rule applies equally to public authorities- Michael v CC of South Wales

 A DOC cannot arise automatically out of a statutory duty or power that the public authority
exercised or failed to exercise-East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent [1941] AC 74 (HL)
 Suggestion of an ultra vires test by Lord Reed in Dorset Yacht was rejected by Lord Browne-
Wilkinson in X v A
 N v Poole Borough Council-LA housed family next door to a family known for anti social
behaviour. Children and mother suffered verbal abuse, neighbours attaked their home and
ar, physically assaulted the mother and one of her children, and made threats of violence.
Various measures taken by LA to stop it were unsuccessful. One of children became suicidal
and ran away from home. LA undertook investigation relating to one of children and he was
made subject to a child protection plan. Abuse caused PI.
 X (minors) v Bedforshire County Council

2. Exceptions
‘something more’
Per Stacey J, the omissions rule does not always apply, but for it not to be applied there needs to be
‘something more’. [HXA v Surrey CC [2022] EWCA Civ 1196]. For example:
 1. D creates/ increased the risk:
Yetkin v London Borough of Newham-council placed plants in road. Plants grew out into road,
obstructing view of road users. As council created the risk, duty of care arose.

 Contrast with Sumner v Colborne

See also Capital & Countries PLC v Hampshire CC-case where fire service made situation worse by
turning off the sprinklers. Here DOC arose.

Note: exception to rule has been criticised for risk of a duty of care arising in cases where defendants
were ‘involved in only a purely peripheral or historical way in the chain of events that led to the
injury of the claimant’ [Winfield & Jo]

2. Assumption of responsibility
Kent v Griffiths [case where woman has asthma attack, husband calls ambulance service. Ambulance
says they are on their way. Husband waits, calls multiple times, told each time they are on their way.
Husband ends up driving her himself. By repeatedly assuring him they are on their way and depriving
him of the opportunity of driving her himself, there is an assumption of responsibility]

 Slightly different to Capital and Countries, as in Kent the answering of call itself gave rise to a
DOC whereas in Capital and Countries the parties had to positively make the situation worse
to give rise to a DOC
 See also Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360 [police had
assumed responsibility for person they had reason to believe was a suicide risk]
 Also Stansbie v Trolman [case where D assured householder he would lock the house when
he left. Was held liable for the subsequent burglary upon him not locking the door].
 Also Barrett v Ministry of Defence- Ministry of defence did not owe general duty of care to
employees to stop them from excessive drinking, but when deceased fell ill, they assumed a
DOC.

Has been criticised, as unclear as to what constitutes an assumption of responsibility. In Poole fact
that LA investigated and monitored the situation was held not to be an assumption of responsibility.

3. Special relationship
Home Office v Dorset Yacht- a duty may be imposed on the defendant if he benefits or stands to
benefit from his relationship with the claimant. In this case home office was liable, as they had a
relationship with third party who caused damage.