Smith et al. v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd., (1987) 73 N.R. 99 (HL)

• Case Date: January 05, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 73 N.R. 99 (HL)

Smith v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd. (1987), 73 N.R. 99 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Rev. F.T. Smith et al. v. Littlewoods Organisation Limited

and

Maloco v. Littlewoods Organisation Limited

Indexed As: Smith et al. v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd.

House of Lords

London, England Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Goff of Chieveley

January 5, 1987.

Summary:

A closed theatre was vandalized and burned, damaging neighbouring properties. The neighbours brought an action against the theatre owner for damages. The Lord Ordinary allowed the action. The owner appealed.

The First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session allowed the appeal in a judgment reported [1986] S.L.T. 272. The neighbours appealed.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.

Torts - Topic 56

Negligence - Causation - Liability for wrongful acts of others - A company bought a closed movie theatre on May 31, intending to soon demolish it and replace it with a supermarket - Contractors of the seller and the company were present until the end of the third week in June, when the theatre became empty - By then the contractors knew that children and young people were getting in and vandalizing the theatre and an official of the Church next door put out a fire in the building - No one informed the company of the vandals' activities - On July 5 a fire was set in the theatre, destroying it and damaging the neighbouring Church and a business - The Church and the business brought an action against the company in negligence for damages, claiming that the company had a duty to take reasonable care to protect its property so that such damage would not be done to neighbours - The House of Lords dismissed the action and held that in the absence of the company's knowledge of the vandalism in the theatre, there was no duty to protect it with a view to protecting the neighbours - The House of Lords held that generally there is no responsibility for the deliberate wrongdoing of others, but discussed exceptions based on the negligent creation of a risk which third parties may be expected to consummate.

Cases Noticed:

Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850, refd to. [paras. 9, 30, 48, 49].

Evans v. Glasgow District Council, [1978] S.L.T. 17, consd. [paras. 26, 37, 68].

Carrick Furniture House Ltd. v. Paterson, [1978] S.L.T. (Notes) 48, consd. [paras. 26, 37, 63].

Thomas Graham & Co. Ltd. v. Church of Scotland General Trustees, [1982] S.L.T. (Sh.Ct.) 26, consd. [paras. 26, 36, 63].

Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] S.C. (H.L.) 31, refd to. [para. 27].

Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office, [1970] A.C. 1004, consd. [paras. 28, 33, 39, 40, 56, 58].

Squires v. Perth and Kinross District Council, [1986] S.L.T. 30, consd. [paras. 28, 42, 47, 66, 67].

Muir v. Glasgow Corporation, [1943] S.C.(H.L.) 3, refd to. [paras. 30, 33].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562, consd. [paras. 33, 52].

Haynes v. Harwood, [1935] 1 K.B. 146, consd. [paras. 33, 59, 68, 69].

Scott's Trustees v. Moss (1889), 17 R. 32, consd. [para. 33].

Bourhill v. Young, [1943] A.C. 92, consd. [para. 33].

Lamb v. Camden London Borough Council, [1981] Q.B. 625, consd. [paras. 34, 39, 68].

Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan, [1940] A.C. 88, consd. [paras. 36, 41].

Fraser v. Glasgow Corporation, [1972] S.C. 162, dist. [para. 38].

P. Perl (Exporters) Ltd. v. Camden London Borough Council, [1984] Q.B. 342, consd. [paras. 40, 41, 44, 58, 71].

Smith v. Leurs (1945), 70 C.L.R. 256, refd to. [paras. 40, 58].

Stansbie v. Troman, [1948] 2 K.B. 48, consd. [paras. 40, 58, 69].

King v. Liverpool City Council, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 890, consd. [paras. 43, 45, 68].

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty., [1967] 1 A.C. 617, consd. [para. 48].

Goldman v. Hargrave, [1967] 1 A.C. 645, consd. [paras. 48, 56, 62, 63, 70].

Weld-Blundell v. Stephens, [1920] A.C. 956, consd. [paras. 57, 59].

Herrington v. British Railways Board, [1972] A.C. 877, consd. [para. 60].

Torrack v. Corpamerica Inc. (1958), 144 A.2d 703, consd. [para. 63].

Prince v. Chehalis Savings & Loan Association (1936), 186 Wash. 372; 58 P.(2d) 290; 61 P.(2d) 1374, refd to. [para. 63].

Arneil v. Schnitzer (1944), 173 Or. 179; 144 P.(2d) 707, refd to. [para. 63].

Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks Co. (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 453, refd to. [para. 71].

Junior Books Ltd. v. Veitchi Co. Ltd., [1983] 1 A.C. 520, refd to. [para. 71].

Leigh and Sullivan Ltd. v. Aliakmon Shipping Co. Ltd., [1985] Q.B. 350, refd to. [para. 71].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728, refd to. [para. 71].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1983), pp. 138 [para. 56]; 200 [para. 55].

Hart and Honore, Causation in the Law (2nd Ed.), pp. 196-197 [para. 55].

Lawson and Markesinis, Tortious liability for Unintentional Harm in the Common law and the Civil law (1982), vol. I, pp. 74-75 [para. 56].

Counsel:

[None disclosed].

This case was heard at London, England, before Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Goff of Chieveley of the House of Lords.

On January 5, 1987, the judgment of the House of Lords was delivered and the following speeches were given:

Lord Keith of Kinkel - see paragraph 1;

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook - see paragraphs 2 to 6;

Lord Griffiths - see paragraphs 7 to 13;

Lord Mackay of Clashfern - see paragraphs 14 to 53;

Lord Goff of Chieveley - see paragraphs 54 to 72.