Chapter 7
Duty of care- omissions
7.1 The basics
- Distinction between acts and omissions
- Distinction lies; while foreseeability of harm may ground a duty to take care not to act in a
particular way, foreseeability of harm is never enough to give rise to a duty of care to come
to someone else’s assistance.
- Something more than a mere foreseeability of harm must be shown before a duty to save
someone else from that harm will arise.
- If A is in a position to save B from harm, A will not owe B a duty to rescue B unless there
exist some special circumstance that would warrant imposing a duty on A to rescue B such
as that:
1. A assumed responsibility to look after B
2. A put B in danger of suffering harm
3. A interfered with either B or someone else from saving B from harm
4. A was in control of a dangerous thing that posed a foreseeable threat to B, or A was in
control of a dangerous person and B was at special risk of being harmed by that person.
- ^ Not exhaustive list.
- Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2006] -> World Health Organisation calls
this ‘the largest mass poisoning of a population in history.’ Bangladesh-> Govt wanted to
give everyone drinking water but the pipes got contaminated with arsenic and led to tens of
millions of people drinking it. Sutradhar was one of them.
- D in ^ case were an organisation-> found that D had failed to test the water and had they
done so they would’ve found the contamination.
- Claimant sued D in negligence, arguing that they had owned him a duty of care in carrying
out their study.
- HL dismissed the claim-> D hadn’t done anything that would’ve made the claimant worse
off: they had merely failed to do something that would’ve saved the claimant from being
made ill. No duty of care found-> no special circumstances attaching to the case that
would’ve made it ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to find a duty of care.
A. Acts and omissions
- Act= D making C worse off by doing something positive.
- Omission= C is no worse off than she would’ve been had D done nothing at all.
- Falling sign problem
- Haseldine v Daw [1941] -> firm of engineers were employed by a landlord to maintain a lift
in a block of flats owned by the landlord. On one of the firm’s monthly visits to maintain the
lift, an engineer failed to put a component part in the lift’s machinery back properly in its
place. The next day, when C used the lift, the lift fell to the bottom of the lift shaft, and C was
injured. CA held that the firm was liable in negligence. The lift was in good condition, and but
for the engineer’s positive act, it would’ve been fine. Reasonably foreseeable that this
positive act would have such an outcome.
- Anns v Merton LBC [1978] -> block of flats were constructed on inadequate foundations.
Plans for the buildings specified that the foundations should be at least 3ft deep. The
foundations were shallower; 6inches. Cracks started developing in the building.
C=leaseholders to parts of the building. Sued D local authority for failing to exercise its
Duty of care- omissions
7.1 The basics
- Distinction between acts and omissions
- Distinction lies; while foreseeability of harm may ground a duty to take care not to act in a
particular way, foreseeability of harm is never enough to give rise to a duty of care to come
to someone else’s assistance.
- Something more than a mere foreseeability of harm must be shown before a duty to save
someone else from that harm will arise.
- If A is in a position to save B from harm, A will not owe B a duty to rescue B unless there
exist some special circumstance that would warrant imposing a duty on A to rescue B such
as that:
1. A assumed responsibility to look after B
2. A put B in danger of suffering harm
3. A interfered with either B or someone else from saving B from harm
4. A was in control of a dangerous thing that posed a foreseeable threat to B, or A was in
control of a dangerous person and B was at special risk of being harmed by that person.
- ^ Not exhaustive list.
- Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2006] -> World Health Organisation calls
this ‘the largest mass poisoning of a population in history.’ Bangladesh-> Govt wanted to
give everyone drinking water but the pipes got contaminated with arsenic and led to tens of
millions of people drinking it. Sutradhar was one of them.
- D in ^ case were an organisation-> found that D had failed to test the water and had they
done so they would’ve found the contamination.
- Claimant sued D in negligence, arguing that they had owned him a duty of care in carrying
out their study.
- HL dismissed the claim-> D hadn’t done anything that would’ve made the claimant worse
off: they had merely failed to do something that would’ve saved the claimant from being
made ill. No duty of care found-> no special circumstances attaching to the case that
would’ve made it ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to find a duty of care.
A. Acts and omissions
- Act= D making C worse off by doing something positive.
- Omission= C is no worse off than she would’ve been had D done nothing at all.
- Falling sign problem
- Haseldine v Daw [1941] -> firm of engineers were employed by a landlord to maintain a lift
in a block of flats owned by the landlord. On one of the firm’s monthly visits to maintain the
lift, an engineer failed to put a component part in the lift’s machinery back properly in its
place. The next day, when C used the lift, the lift fell to the bottom of the lift shaft, and C was
injured. CA held that the firm was liable in negligence. The lift was in good condition, and but
for the engineer’s positive act, it would’ve been fine. Reasonably foreseeable that this
positive act would have such an outcome.
- Anns v Merton LBC [1978] -> block of flats were constructed on inadequate foundations.
Plans for the buildings specified that the foundations should be at least 3ft deep. The
foundations were shallower; 6inches. Cracks started developing in the building.
C=leaseholders to parts of the building. Sued D local authority for failing to exercise its
