Smith v Littlewoods [1987]: Can Owners Be Liable for Vandalism?

Case Name: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd

Court: House of Lords

Citations: [1987] AC 241, [1987] UKHL 18, 1987 SLT 425, [1987] 1 All ER 710, 1987 SCLR 489, [1987] 2 WLR 480, 1987 SC (HL) 37

Date of Judgment: 5 February 1987

Judges (Law Lords): Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, andLord Goff of Chieveley

Areas of Law: Negligence, Duty of Care, Liability for acts of third parties (vandals/arsonists), Foreseeability and remoteness, Occupier’s liability

Background (Smith v Littlewoods)

Littlewoods bought an ancient theatre in Dunfermline in 1976, with plans to demolish it and build a supermarket over there. The structure had become vacant and unprotected prior to its demolition. Vandals (kids and teenagers) routinely broke into the premises. On July 5, 1976, vandals caused a fire that destroyed the cinema and damaged nearby properties:

Café Maloco (owned by Mr. Maloco)

St. Paul’s Church (Smith and Others as representatives)

Note: The Maloco v Littlewoods and Smith v Littlewoods cases were heard together because they both arose from the same incident. But the case is commonly cited as Smith v Littlewoods.

Key Legal Issue

The neighbouring property owners sued Littlewoods, claiming carelessness. They contended that Littlewoods should have anticipated the possibility of vandalism and fire and taken reasonable precautions (such as hiring a caretaker) to safeguard the property. The primary legal question: Was it reasonably foreseeable that vandals would set a fire that would spread to other properties?

Initial Ruling

The Lord Ordinary (trial judge) decided in favor of the claimants, stating that fire was reasonably foreseeable and Littlewoods violated their duty of care.

Appeal (Inner House – Scottish Court of Session)

Overturned the Lord Ordinary’s decision.

Final Judgement (House of Lords) in Smith v Littlewoods

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal: Littlewoods was not held liable.

The judges determined that, while vandalism was predictable, a significant fire (particularly one that caused damage to neighbouring buildings) was not reasonably foreseeable.  There was no evidence Littlewoods knew about prior fire attempts that had occurred earlier, nor was the building inherently flammable. Imposing a duty to protect against extreme events (such as arson by unknown trespassers) would be too onerous or burdensome for property owners.  There was no unique relationship between Littlewoods and the vandals that would make them accountable for the third parties’ criminal actions.

In the words of Lord Griffiths:

“The fire in this case was caused by the criminal activity of third parties upon Littlewoods’ premises. I do not say that there will never be circumstances in which the law will require an occupier of premises to take special precautions against such a contingency, but they would surely have to be extreme indeed.”

“People do not mount 24-hour guards on empty properties and the law would impose an intolerable burden if it required them to do so save in the most exceptional circumstances.”

Conclusion

The House of Lords dismissed the appeals by Mr. Maloco and the church. It stated that the duty of care does not extend to unforeseeable criminal acts by third parties. The risk must be extreme and obvious – reasonable foreseeability of the specific damage (a major fire) must be there – for a duty to be established. Therefore, no specific duty was owed by Littlewoods to the neighboring properties.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1987/1987_SC_HL_37.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

• Murray v McMurchy [1949]: Informed Consent in Medical Law
• Neindorf v Junkovic [2005]: The Court’s View on Occupiers’ Liability
• How Grosse v Purvis Redefined Privacy Law in Australia?