Maloco v Littlewoods; Smith v Litlewoods: HL 5 Feb 1987

The pursuer sought damages after his cafe was burned in a fire which started in a neighbouring insecure abandoned building owned by the defenders.
Held: The defendant was held not liable to adjoining occupiers for a fire started by vandals in its disused premises. The question was whether or not the occurrence of such behaviour was reasonably foreseeable, and that on the facts of the case it was not.
Lord Goff of Chievely said: ‘if this proposition is understood as relating to a general duty take reasonable care not to cause damage to premises in the neighbourhood . . then it is unexceptionable. But it must not be overlooked that a problem arises when the pursuer is seeking to hold the defender responsible for having failed to prevent a third party from causing damage to the pursuer or his property by the third party’s own deliberate wrongdoing. In such a case, it is not possible to invoke a general duty of care; for it is well recognized that there is no general duty of care to prevent third parties from causing such damage.’
Lord Mackay of Clashfern said that the more unpredictable the behaviour in question, the higher the degree of probability of such behaviour occurring would be necessary to find that such loss was reasonably foreseeable.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chievely, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Rodger,

Citations:

[1987] UKHL 18, 1987 SCLR 489, [1987] 2 WLR 480, 1987 SLT 425, 1987 SC (HL) 37, [1987] 1 All ER 710, (1987) 84 LSG 905, [1987] AC 241

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Negligence

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279755