Torts: Omissions

Causation problems in omission cases: Catchment Board decided to repair breach to a tidal wall after flooding, but did it inefficiently so took 5 months longer. Held did not cause the harm nor make it worse (no duty). If you say there is a duty, you are saying not fufilling it is a cause.

Policy concerns: Economically efficient for an activity to bear its own cost, will result in market failures and externalities if someone else has to pay: "It is one thing to provide a service at the public expense. It is another to require the public to pay compensation when the failure to provide a service has resulted in a loss". (WRT PB's). Induced reliance: duty to act if have induced reliance

Induced reliance: relied on the board to take reasonable skill and care, and failed to ensure resucitation equipment available ringside.

Induced reliance: can be claimed even where the loss is purely financial. Here a vendor promised to procure insurance for a property which burned down.

Induced reliance: in the absence of, there is no duty to warn, insurer's aware of broker's fraud did not have to warn the bank.

Occupation of property: liability to visitors. Occupier exercises control over and has knowledge of the property so it's "natural and right" that they should have the resp of safety on the property. Occupier's liability Act 1962 reflects the common law and resp may require abating dangers.

Ocuupation over property: liability to trespassers. Child trespassed on railway line and touched live electric wire. The relationship was forced on the occupier but the duty could be based on "common humanity". Duty subjective (based on capacity) Breached as had created danger knowing of children, and no steps to abate.

Occupation over property: liability to trespassers. Occupier sprayed crop without warning neighbours and killed the neighbour's bees. Alleged they were trespassing bees. Even if they were, still required to take precautions and so DOC recognised here.

Occupation of land: liablity to neighbours. Fire started by lightening strike and spread to neighbours. Held there was a duty to put it out, but it was subjective (depending what can reasonably expect given capacity) as didn't start the fire.

Occupation over property: liability to neighbours. D couldn't be shown to have started the fire, but negligently overstakced newsprint, making it harder to fight. Had a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise the effects of fire as occupier, applying Goldman.

Occupation over property: liability to neighbours. Derelict cinema was set on fire by vandals and it spread. No knowledge here, but will be a duty on the basis of Goldman if has knowledge (or means of it) of 3rd party creating danger to their property. However, practically what can you do? Need control over wrongdoers, Perl v Camden. "Sparking off" principle suggected by Lord Goff: "where the D has negligently caused or permitted the creation of a danger...where it is forseeable that a third party may trespass...and spark it off".

Occupation over property: liability to negihbours. DOC where children found detonators in abandoned quarry, but not where the keys where left in a mini bus and taken for a joy ride killing P's wife. No inherent danger in the later application of "sparking off".

Occupation over property: liability to neighbours. Approved Lord Goff's "sparking off" approach.

Innocent creation of danger: need to warn or take steps to remove danger even if not created through negligence. e.g. leaving victim on the road after an accident.

Assuming resp for another person. Father partly responsible for not supervising child near road and got knocked down.