5. Toulsons First Exception Flashcards
What is this exception?
Where D is in a position of control over the third party, and should have foreseen the likelihood of the third party causing damage to somebody in close proximity
- Parents/schools to children?
Will owe a duty to control the actions of the child.
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis - the school failed to ensure gates were locked, a child escaped, ran into the road, causing Mr Lewis to swerve and crash. The school were held liable. They had a relationship of control over the child, should have taken steps to ensure the child’s actions would not cause damage to another. Mr Lewis was a victim of proximity to the school, as the incident happened while he was driving past it.
2.Prison authority - prisoners
Home office v Dorset Yacht - home office were liable. There was a sufficient relationship of control over the young offenders who caused damage to a person in reasonable proximity in the escape. The Home Office should have taken steps to ensure the young offenders could not escape.
NSW v Godfrey - a prisoner escaped and after 3 months he robbed somebody. NSW were not liable. Although they had a sufficient level of control over the prisoner, the victim to this prisoner was not sufficiently proximate. Only persons in the immediate vicinity of the prison could claim for breach.
3.Police officers - criminals?
Depends. If the criminal has been arrested/in custody then yes, police have a suffice to relationship of control over the criminal. If not arrested/custody then no. This was seen in Michael, where although the police knew of the suspects name, they did not have a suffice to relationship of control over him; therefore no breach.
Also depends of the proximity of the injured; if criminal escapes and c is in the immediate vicinity then yes as seen in Home Office v Dorset Yacht.
But if the claimant is not close in vicinity then no, as shown by NSW v Godfrey.
- Hospital for psychiatric patient?
In Tarasoff Regents of the Univ of California: there was held to be a sufficient relationship of control between the hospital and the third party. The hospital failed to warn a person who was later killed by the patient, therefore amounted to a breach. In this particular case the hospital did have sufficient control over the patient, because they had the potential to keep the patient in custody control which enables a sufficient level of control over the patient.
However, In a general doctor-patient relationship, if the patient tells something to the doctor in the sphere of confidentiality, there is no breach if the doctor fails to disclose this information and someone is injured as a result, because the necessary level of control would not be applicable.
- Probation officer - person on parole?
Crouch v Attorney General (American case): it is possible for a probation service to have sufficient control over a third party for a duty to be owed to prevent harm to C. Probation service is a public body charged with ensuring the public are kept safe. Particularly the case where the probation officer has the ability to put people back in prison and impose conditions on people’s release, including who they can and can’t contact.
