## Facts

- Littlewoods Organisation Ltd purchased a disused cinema with the intention of developing it into a supermarket.
- Approximately five weeks after acquisition, vandals set fire to the property, causing damage to neighboring properties owned by the plaintiffs.
- The cinema had become a frequent target for trespassers and local children prior to the fire.
- Littlewoods had no prior knowledge of any attempted arson on the premises.
- The plaintiffs alleged that Littlewoods was negligent for failing to secure the cinema, carry out regular inspections, or employ a caretaker.
- At first instance, the Court of Session (Outer House) found in favor of the plaintiffs, but this was overturned on appeal by the Court of Session (Inner House).
- The plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords, focusing on whether Littlewoods owed a duty of care to protect neighboring properties from the actions of trespassers.

## Issues

1. Whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to adjoining occupiers for damage caused by trespassers on their land.
2. Whether a duty of care requires an assumption of responsibility or knowledge of specific risks posed by third parties.
3. Whether the circumstances of the case fell within recognized exceptions to the general rule against liability for omissions, especially concerning third-party acts.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, finding Littlewoods did not owe a duty of care to the neighboring property owners regarding the acts of the vandals.
- The court held that property owners are generally not liable for harm caused by third parties unless exceptional circumstances apply.
- It was determined that mere ownership of accessible property is insufficient to establish a duty; actual knowledge or foreseeability of a specific risk is essential.
- The absence of prior arson attempts or specific warnings meant Littlewoods had no reason to anticipate the fire.
- None of the established exceptions to the omissions rule were present in this case.

## Legal Principles

- There is generally no liability for pure omissions in negligence unless a specific relationship exists or an assumption of responsibility has occurred.
- Exceptions to the rule against liability for omissions include:
  - Where the defendant has a relationship of control or supervision over the third party causing harm.
  - When the defendant has created or adopted a source of danger from which harm foreseeably results.
  - When the defendant occupies a position of authority or responsibility and fails to act to prevent harm.

- Actual or constructive knowledge of a specific danger is critical to establishing a duty of care in such contexts.
- Mere ownership of property does not by itself create liability for the acts of trespassers, absent special circumstances.

## Conclusion

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241 (HL) clarified that omissions liability concerning third-party acts will only arise where there is a known risk or a special relationship that justifies imposing a duty of care, with later cases reaffirming the importance of foreseeability and knowledge when determining liability for third-party interventions.
