Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48

Facts

• The defendant, Stansbie, was contracted as a decorator to work at the plaintiff Troman’s home.
• During the course of his work, Stansbie left the house unattended and unlocked for approximately two hours to purchase wallpaper.
• While the premises were left unsecured, a third party entered and burgled the property, resulting in theft of Troman's possessions.
• Troman sought to recover the cost of the stolen items from Stansbie, alleging negligence and breach of contractual obligation.

Issues

1. Whether a contractual relationship between decorator and homeowner can give rise to a duty of care to take positive steps to secure the property.
2. Whether Stansbie breached that duty by leaving the premises unlocked and unattended.
3. Whether the act of a third-party burglar intervened and broke the chain of causation, absolving Stansbie of liability.
4. Whether the loss suffered was too remote and whether the burglary was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct.

Decision

• The court held that Stansbie’s contractual relationship with Troman imposed a duty of care to take reasonable precautions in safeguarding the premises, including when left unattended.
• The court found that leaving the house unlocked for two hours constituted a breach of this duty.
• The court determined that the burglary did not break the chain of causation because the very risk Stansbie was obliged to guard against was unauthorized third-party entry.
• The loss was not too remote; it was reasonably foreseeable that an unlocked and unattended house could lead to burglary and loss.

Legal Principles

• A contractual relationship may impose a duty of care broader than the explicit contractual terms, requiring reasonable precautions in relation to foreseeable risks.
• The duty of care can require positive action, not merely refraining from harm.
• Where the duty is to guard against a specific third-party action, the occurrence of that action does not break the causal chain.
• Foreseeability and remoteness principles apply: damages must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the breach and not too remote.
• The standard of care is determined by what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, adapting to the specific facts of the contractual arrangement.

Conclusion

This case established that a contractor entrusted with property owes a duty of care to take reasonable security measures. Failure to do so, resulting in reasonably foreseeable loss—even by the actions of a third party—is actionable in negligence if such acts are the very risk against which the duty was owed.