## Facts

- A motorcyclist (the claimant) was seriously injured in an accident at a junction where a bank of earth impaired visibility.
- Norfolk County Council (the defendant) had statutory power under the Highways Act 1980 to remove the obstruction as the highway authority.
- Previous accidents had occurred at the same junction, and the council had discussed and agreed with landowners to remove the obstruction but failed to do so.
- The claimant, having paid damages to another party injured in the collision, sought a contribution from the council on the basis that its failure to remove the bank constituted negligence.
- The key question before the House of Lords was whether the council owed a duty of care to motorists to remove obstructions impairing visibility and whether failure to act made them liable in negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether a public authority’s failure to exercise a statutory power (omission), such as removing a roadside obstruction, can give rise to a private law duty of care in negligence.
2. Whether a distinction should be drawn between ‘acts’ and ‘omissions’, particularly in the context of public authority liability.
3. Under what circumstances, if any, a decision classified as ‘policy’ by an authority can nonetheless lead to liability in negligence.
4. Whether the mere possession of a statutory power imposes a corresponding duty of care upon the authority.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the council was not liable in negligence for failing to remove the bank of earth.
- Liability for a failure to exercise a statutory power only arises when two conditions are satisfied: (1) the failure was irrational in the circumstances, and (2) there are exceptional grounds for imposing compensation.
- Neither condition was met, as the council’s inaction was not deemed irrational.
- The distinction between policy and operational decisions was found to be of limited assistance for determining liability; merely classifying a decision as ‘policy’ does not preclude a duty of care.
- The court reiterated the general reluctance to impose liability for omissions, especially regarding the powers not duties of public authorities.
- Lord Nicholls dissented, arguing that the act/omission distinction is not always clear and that certain omissions may properly be treated as part of a broader course of action capable of creating liability.

## Legal Principles

- The existence of statutory powers does not automatically create a common law duty of care in negligence; liability for omission is exceptional.
- Inaction (omission) by public authorities generally does not attract liability unless it is irrational and there are exceptional grounds.
- The so-called ‘omissions rule’ is justified on political, moral, and economic grounds, being less intrusive and fairer than requiring rescue or protection.
- The distinction between policy and operational decisions is not determinative of negligence liability.
- Cases such as Capital and Counties Plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004 illustrate that public authorities may only be liable when their conduct worsens a situation rather than simply failing to intervene.

## Conclusion

Stovin v Wise established that public authorities are generally not liable for failing to exercise statutory powers unless their omission was irrational and exceptional grounds exist for liability, reinforcing limits on negligence claims against such bodies until later shifts in legal doctrine reversed this position.

Stovin v Wise [1996] 3 All ER 801 (HL)