The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third party to set a fire was not sufficiently foreseeable, even though there had been an earlier fire. Had it been foreseeable, no doubt the pursuers would themselves have warned the defendants of the risk. What a reasonable man is bound to foresee are the probable consequences of his own actions. To be held responsible for the action of others some clear basis must be found for anticipating their action. The House doubted the existence of a touchstone which could be applied as a universal test. It should be left to the good sense of judges ‘to apply realistic standards in conformity with generally accepted patterns of behaviour’ when deciding whether an occupier should be liable in negligence for a danger created on his property by the act of a trespasser.
Lord Goff identified four circumstances in which a party may become liable for the acts of third parties; (a) where there is a special relationship between defendant and plaintiff based on an assumption of responsibility by the defendant; (b) where there is a special relationship between the defendant and the third party based on control by the defendant; (c) where defendant is responsible for a state of danger which may [be] exploited by a third party; and (d) where the defendant is responsible for property which may be used by third party to cause damage.
Judges: Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern
References:  AC 241,  2 WLR 480,  UKHL 3, 1987 SC (HL) 37
- Bourhill -v- Young's Executor, HL, Cited, ( AC 92,  SC (HL) 78, 1943 SLT 105, Bailii,  UKHL 5)
- Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd -v- Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2), PC, Cited, ( 2 AC 617, Bailii,  UKPC 1)
- Bolton -v- Stone, HL, Cited, ( AC 850,  1 All ER 1078, Bailii,  UKHL 2)
- Goldman -v- Hargrave, PC, Cited, ( 1 AC 645,  3 WLR 513,  2 All ER 989, Bailii,  UKPC 2)
- Dorset Yacht Co Ltd -v- Home Office, HL, Cited, ( AC 1004,  2 WLR 1140,  2 All ER 94, Bailii,  UKHL 2)
- Evans -v- Glasgow District Council, , Cited, ( CLY 1789)
- Lamb -v- Camden London Borough Council, , Cited, ( 2 All ER 408,  2 WLR 1038)
- Perl (P) (Exporters) -v- Camden London Borough Council, CA, Cited, ( QB 342,  2531,  3 All ER 161)
- Glasgow Corporation -v- Muir, HL, Cited, ( AC 448,  2 All ER 44,  SC (HL) 3)
- King -v- Liverpool City Council, CA, Cited, ( CLY 2260, [1986 3 All ER 544)
- Susan Moore -v- Kirklees Metropolitan Council, CA, Cited, (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 1326)
- The Attorney General -v- Hartwell, PC, Cited, (PC, Bailii,  UKPC 12, Times 27-Feb-04, PC, Gazette 25-Mar-04,  1 WLR 1273,  PIQR 27)
- Gabriel -v- Kirklees Metropolitan Council, CA, Cited, (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 345, Times 12-Apr-04)
- Davies -v- Stockwell (T/A R & R Stockwell Builiding Contractors), CA, Cited, (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 444)
- B & B -v- A County Council, CA, Cited, (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 1388, )
- Hertfordshire Police -v- Van Colle; Smith -v- Chief Constable of Sussex Police, HL, Cited, (Bailii,  UKHL 50,  3 All ER 977,  3 WLR 593, Times 01-Aug-08, HL,  PIQR P2,  UKHRR 967,  HRLR 44,  1 AC 225,  1 Cr App R 12,  LS Law Medical 1)
- Prison Officers Association -v- Iqbal, CA, Cited, (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 1312, Times,  2 WLR 1054,  QB 732)