The plaintiffs had leased basement premises from the defendants and used them to store garments. The defendants owned the adjoining premises. Those premises had a broken lock on the front door. Unauthorised persons were often seen on those premises and burglaries had often taken place there. The defendants did nothing about complaints regarding the lack of security. During a weekend, intruders entered the defendants premises, knocked a hole through the common wall in the basement and stole garments from the plaintiffs basement. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants claiming damages for negligence and succeeded at first instance.
Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded. The actions of thieves, interposed between the defendants’ conduct and the plaintiff’s injury, meant that the defendants were not liable.
Waller LJ said: ‘But no case has been cited to us where a party has been held liable for the acts of a third party when there was no element of control over the third party. While I do not take the view that there can never be such a case I do take the view that the absence of control must make the court approach the suggestion that there is liability for a third party who was not under the control of the defendant with caution.’
Judges:
Waller, Oliver, Goff LJJ
Citations:
[1984] QB 342, [1983] 3 All ER 161, [1983] 3 WLR 769, [1983] EWCA Civ 9
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190057
