Perry v Kendricks [1956] 1 WLR 85

Facts

• Kendricks owned land on which a disused petrol tank had been buried, emptied, and rendered safe, but the tank was not removed or filled in.
• A group of children trespassed onto Kendricks’s property and, while playing, lit a fire near the tank.
• The fire caused an explosion, injuring Perry, a bystander.
• Perry brought a negligence claim against Kendricks, arguing that Kendricks failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harm from the petrol tank.
• Kendricks relied on the "act of a stranger" defense, contending the injuries resulted from unforeseeable and independent actions of the children.

Issues

1. Whether Kendricks owed a duty of care to prevent harm arising from third-party misuse of the property.
2. Whether the harm was caused by a foreseeable risk for which Kendricks could be held liable.
3. Whether the "act of a stranger" defense could relieve Kendricks of liability in these circumstances.
4. Whether the chain of causation between Kendricks’s conduct and Perry’s injury was broken by the children’s independent act.

Decision

• The court found that Kendricks had taken reasonable steps to render the petrol tank safe by emptying it.
• It was held that the duty of care did not extend to guarding against every conceivable misuse by third parties.
• The court determined that the risk of children trespassing and setting a fire near the petrol tank was unforeseeable.
• The "act of a stranger" defense applied, as the children’s actions were independent and unforeseeable.
• The immediate cause of harm was the act of the children, not Kendricks’s conduct; thus, the causal link was too remote to fix liability on Kendricks.

Legal Principles

• A defendant’s duty of care in negligence extends only to foreseeable risks, not to every possible misuse by third parties.
• The "act of a stranger" defense absolves a defendant from liability where harm arises from unforeseeable, independent third-party acts.
• Causation in negligence requires a direct, foreseeable link between the defendant’s conduct and the harm suffered; unforeseeable interventions by third parties can break this chain of causation.
• Remoteness of damage limits liability to consequences which are reasonably foreseeable.

Conclusion

Perry v Kendricks [1956] 1 WLR 85 confirmed that a defendant is not liable in negligence for harm caused by the unforeseeable and independent act of a third party, reinforcing the boundaries of duty of care and causation in English tort law through application of the "act of a stranger" defense.