Legal Case Summary
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] UKHL 18; [1987] AC 241; [1987] 2 WLR 480; [1987] 1 All ER 710
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, VANDALISM, FIRE STARTED BY VANDALS, OCCUPIERS OF THE ADJOINING PREMISES, LIABILITY OF OCCUPIERS
Facts
The defendant purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a supermarket. Five weeks after the defendant entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target to vandals and children who often played there, but the defendants had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against the defendants on grounds that they failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema lockfast, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. The Court of Session (Outer House) ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court of Session (Inner House) reversed the decision of the Outer House and the plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
Does the occupier of a property owe a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
Decision / Outcome
The House of Lords dismissed both appeals.
(1) Whether an occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties depends on the circumstances of the case and socially accepted standards of behaviour.
(2) Cases where a duty of care exists are likely to be rare.
(3) The House held that Littlewoods did not have to anticipate and guard against the fire on these facts. It had no knowledge of earlier attempts to set fires and there was no sufficiently apparent risk that intruders would start a fire that would spread to neighbouring premises.
Read the full House of Lords judgment in the Smith and Maloco appeals
