Stovin v Wise
A public authority that failed to exercise a statutory power to remove a hazard on a road did not owe a duty of care to a road user injured as a result.
Facts
Mr Stovin was injured when his motorcycle collided with a car driven by Mrs Wise, which was pulling out of a junction where visibility was obscured by a bank of earth on adjoining land owned by British Rail. The local highway authority knew that the junction was dangerous, and had asked British Rail to remove the bank, but had not followed this up. Mrs Wise's insurers claimed a contribution from the authority, arguing that it had been negligent in failing to exercise its statutory power to remove the obstruction.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the authority owed no duty of care. Lord Hoffmann said that the minimum preconditions for basing a duty of care on the existence of a statutory power are that it would in the circumstances have been irrational not to have exercised the power, so that there was in effect a public law duty to act, and that there are exceptional grounds for holding that the policy of the statute requires compensation to be paid to persons who suffer loss because the power was not exercised. Neither condition was satisfied. Lord Slynn and Lord Nicholls dissented.
Related cases on duty of care
- Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
- Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004
- Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50, [2019] AC 831
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] UKHL 15, [2004] 1 WLR 1057
- Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53
- Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
