“No general duty to prevent third parties causing harm; liability requires special circumstances.”
Littlewoods bought a disused cinema in Dunfermline, intending to demolish it. The building was left empty and unsecured. Vandals repeatedly broke in and lit fires. Eventually, a serious fire spread to adjacent properties owned by Smith, causing significant damage. Smith sued Littlewoods for failing to secure the premises.
Whether a landowner owes a duty of care to neighbouring property owners to prevent third parties from using their land to cause damage, and the scope of liability for omissions in negligence law.
The House of Lords held in favour of Littlewoods. No duty of care was owed to prevent third parties from causing damage, as there were no special circumstances creating such a duty.
This case is crucial for understanding the limits of negligence liability, particularly regarding omissions and third party acts. It maintains the fundamental distinction between acts and omissions in tort law while providing important guidance on when exceptional duties may arise.
You're reading the free summary of Smith v Littlewoods Organisation. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation [1987] AC 241 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.