Tort negligence duty

Omissions
Omissions or acts	Following Donoghue negligence can be an omission as well as a positive act: for example Dorset Yacht (being asleep whilst Borstal boys went on the rampage).
Liability for omissions and acts of third parties	No one is under a (legal) obligation to to assist others. Unless: He has undertaken a task, he has a duty to perform it carefully. He has a personal relationship with the other person When harm or loss is caused by a third party whom D should control (third parties). Acts of third parties are not the responsibility of a defendant unless there is a common law duty to prevent the third party from causing injury or other harm. If there is such a duty then proximity (and so a duty) may be found to exist.
Yuen Kun-yeu and others v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] PC	Lord Keith denied a liability for omissions: "Otherwise there would be liability in negligence on the part of one who sees another about to walk over a cliff with his head in the air, and forbears to shout a warning." Similarly no duty is owed to a blind man about to walk into the path of a vehicle. Nor to summon assistance to casualties of a road or any other type of accident. Nor to save one's neighbour's property from the effects of a sudden change in the weather.
Duty to rescue	English law does not recognise a duty to rescue someone in peril, in the absence of special circumstances In France the law does recognise such a duty and in the USA several states have a requirement to make easy rescues; in both cases the law does not require a rescuer to put himself in danger.
The distinction between acts and omissions	The distinction between liability for acts and liability for omissions is not free from controversy. Failure to apply the handbrake when parking a vehicle is the classic illustration of an omission. The omission is the element which makes the activity negligent. Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] is an instance where the distinction was not so easy to apply. The distinction between acts and omissions is based on a recognition that it is one matter to require a person to take care if he embarks on a course of conduct which may harm others. He must take care not to create a risk of danger. It is another matter to require a person, who is doing nothing, to take positive action to protect others from harm for which he was not responsible, and to hold him liable in damages if he fails to do so. Compulsory altruism needs more justification than an obligation not to create dangers to others when acting for one's own purposes.
Stovin v Wise [1996] HL	A local authority no duty of care to remove a hazardous bank. Lord Nicholls said "...the recognised legal position is that the bystander does not owe the drowning child or the heedless pedestrian a duty to take steps to save him. Something more is required than being a bystander. There must be some additional reason why it is fair and reasonable that one person should be regarded as his brother's keeper and have legal obligations in that regard."
He has undertaken a task, he has a duty to perform it carefully.
Kent v Griffiths [2001] CA	There was found to be a duty when the ambulance service omitted to provide an ambulance in good time when a call is accepted, whereas a doctor who witnesses a traffic accident is not obliged to render aid.
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Management Committee (1969) QBD	It was held that an accident and emergency department of a hospital owed a duty of care to those who sought help and a negligent omission could give rise to liability.
Mercer v South Eastern & Chatham Railway Companies' Management Committee (1922)	The practice of locking a railway crossing gate when a train was coming led those who used the gate to believe that if the gate was unlocked it was safe lo cross. It was held that failing to lock the gate gave rise to a liability for omission.
He has a personal relationship with the other person
There is a positive duty to prevent harm	For example: an employer owes a duty to employees, a parent owes a duty to a child. The essence of the relationship is that the victim has relied, expressly or impliedly, on the alleged wrongdoer to keep the victim free from harm.
Duty to prevent suicide	Medical staff owe a duty to take precautions against suicide attempts by patients to whom they owe a duty of care (Self v Ilford & District Hospital Management Committee [1970]) as do the prison authorities.
Knight v Home Office [1990]	Prison authorities owe a duty to take precautions against suicide attempts by prisoners to whom they owe a duty of care.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1997]	The police owe a duty to take precautions against suicide attempts by persons in their custody to whom they owe a duty of care.
When harm or loss is caused by a third party whom D should control.
Smith v Littlewoods [1987] HL	D had no duty to prevent a fire started by vandals.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] HL	The police were under no obligation to prevent the Yorkshire Ripper killing Mrs Hill's daughter.
Topp v London Country Bus [1993] CA	A bus company did not owe a cyclist a duty of care who was injured when one of its buses was stolen.
Smoldon v Whitworth [1997] CA	A referee owes a duty of care to young players who may injure each other.
Vowles v Evans (2003) CA	A referee owes a duty of care to adult players who may injure each other.
Watson v BBBC [2000] CA	The British Boxing Board of Control owes a duty of care to ensure boxers do not suffer more severe injuries by not being treated.
Camarthenshire CC v Lewis [1955] HL	A teacher owed a duty of care to a lorry driver killed avoiding a child in her care.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970] HL	The Home Office owed a duty of care to a yacht owner whose yacht was damaged by trainees who escaped.