Stovin v Wise is a leading decision of the House of Lords on negligence, particularly concerning omissions and the liability of public authorities. The case examines whether a local highway authority can be held liable in private law for failing to exercise a statutory power which might have prevented a road traffic accident.
The judgement is especially significant for its treatment of the distinction between public law powers and private law duties, and for clarifying when, if ever, a failure to act can give rise to liability in negligence.
Background and Facts of Stovin v Wise
The facts underlying Stovin v Wise concerned a dangerous road junction in Wymondham. At this junction, a raised earthen bank obstructed the view of drivers attempting to turn onto the main road. Over a period of twelve years, three accidents had occurred at this location, bringing the danger to the attention of the local highway authority, Norfolk County Council.
The highway authority was aware of the obstruction and had identified the earthen bank as a hazard. Discussions had taken place with the landowners, and it had been agreed that work would be done to remove or reduce the bank to improve visibility at the junction.
Despite this agreement and prior knowledge of the risk, no action had been taken by the authority by the time of the accident that gave rise to the claim.
Ms Wise was driving at the junction and attempted to turn right. Her view of oncoming traffic was obstructed by the earthen bank. As she pulled into the road, Mr Stovin was approaching on his motorcycle at speed. Due to the limited visibility and insufficient time to react, a collision occurred between the motorcycle and Ms Wise’s vehicle. Mr Stovin suffered serious injuries as a result.
Procedural History
Following the accident, Mr Stovin brought a claim in negligence against Ms Wise as the driver of the other vehicle and also against the local authority. The High Court found Ms Wise to be primarily responsible for the accident and held her 70 per cent liable. The local authority was found to be 30 per cent liable on the basis that its failure to remove the obstruction had contributed to the dangerous situation at the junction.
The local authority appealed this finding. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld the High Court’s decision, agreeing that the highway authority could be held liable in negligence for failing to remove the earthen bank.
The matter then proceeded to the House of Lords, where the sole issue on appeal was whether the local authority could properly be said to owe a duty of care to the claimant in these circumstances.
Legal Issue
The central issue in Stovin v Wise was whether a local authority could owe a common law duty of care in negligence for failing to exercise a statutory power, specifically where there was no express statutory duty to act. The question required the House of Lords to consider whether non-compliance with what might be described as a public law responsibility or discretion could give rise to liability in private law.
More specifically, the issue was whether the existence of a statutory power under the Highways Act 1980, section 79, which allowed a local authority to remove obstructions from highways, imposed a corresponding obligation enforceable through a negligence claim when the authority chose not to exercise that power.
Statutory Context
Under section 79 of the Highways Act 1980, a highway authority was given the power to remove barriers, banks, or other obstructions that interfered with the safe use of a highway. Importantly, the provision granted a power rather than imposing a mandatory duty.
The statute did not require the authority to act in every case where an obstruction existed; instead, it allowed the authority to exercise discretion based on available resources and priorities.
This statutory framework formed an important backdrop to the decision, as it required the court to decide whether the discretionary nature of the power could be transformed into a common law duty of care through the law of negligence.
Stovin v Wise Judgement
In Stovin v Wise, the House of Lords allowed the appeal brought by the local authority and held that no duty of care existed. The majority judgement was delivered by Lord Hoffmann, with Lords Goff and Jauncey concurring. Lord Nicholls dissented, with Lord Slynn agreeing with the dissent.
The majority held that the mere existence of a statutory power did not give rise to a common law duty to exercise that power. While the highway authority had the ability to remove the obstruction, its failure to do so amounted to an omission rather than a positive act. In the absence of special circumstances, omissions do not ordinarily give rise to liability in negligence.
Reasoning of the Majority
The majority emphasised that a clear distinction must be maintained between public law duties and private law obligations. Even if a public authority might be criticised in public law for failing to act, this did not automatically mean that an individual could claim damages in private law for negligence. The court rejected the idea that non-performance of a public law discretion could, by itself, found a claim in negligence.
Lord Hoffmann also highlighted the policy implications of imposing liability in such circumstances. If every failure by a local authority to exercise a statutory power were capable of giving rise to claims for damages, this would place an excessive burden on public resources. The authority would be exposed to wide-ranging liability for how it chose to allocate limited funds and manpower.
Additionally, the majority considered that road users were already required to carry insurance, which reduced the fairness of imposing additional liability on the local authority. For these reasons, it was concluded that it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care on the authority in this case.
Dissenting Opinion
In Stovin v Wise, the dissenting judges took a different view on the relationship between knowledge of danger and responsibility. They placed emphasis on the authority’s awareness of the specific risk at the junction, the history of previous accidents, and the fact that the authority had already acknowledged the problem and agreed that remedial action should be taken.
From this perspective, the failure to act was not simply a neutral omission but a significant factor contributing to the persistence of a known danger. However, this approach did not prevail, and the dissenting opinion did not alter the final outcome of the case.
Conclusion
Stovin v Wise stands as a clear statement that public authorities are generally not liable in negligence for failing to exercise discretionary statutory powers. The House of Lords drew a firm line between public law responsibilities and private law duties, emphasising policy considerations, resource allocation, and the established reluctance of negligence law to impose liability for omissions.
The case remains a cornerstone authority for understanding the limits of negligence claims against public bodies in English tort law.