6. Toulsons Second Exception Flashcards
What is the second exception?
Where D assumes a positive responsibility to safeguard C.
The positive obligation to safeguard may arise from voluntary actions, particular relationships or statutory duty. It must be the kind of assumption where the claimant relies on it.
Quasi-contractual Activities:
Stansbie v Troman - D paints C’s house, he is given the keys but when he leaves he forgets to lock the door. The house is broken into and valuables are stolen. D assumed a responsibility to lock the door and C relied upon this.
Cases where D has assumed responsibility through his actions, but not necessarily agreed it with C in advance:
Barrett v MOD - C is in the army and goes to the pub on base for a drink. He becomes very drunk and passes out unconscious in the bar. His friends pick him up and put him to bed. C chokes on his vomit causing serious injury.
Court held: his friends fell below the standard of care. They intervened and assumed responsibility for his health, and failed to live up to that assumption of responsibility. C did not in fact rely on them because he was unconscious, but if the friends intervened; it it reasonable to assume they will do it properly;therefore reasonable to rely on them. There is a duty of care if intervening to not a make the matters worse, but they made it more likely that he would suffer bad consequences by removing him from a public area into a private one.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police: C was identified as being at risk of self-harm when arriving at the police station. Officers failed to make sure the cell was clear of items able to inflict injuries. There was a duty of care to prevent C injuring themselves in police custody. C managed to commit suicide as a result of police failing to ensure the cell was safe.
Where reliance has taken place
Kent v Griffiths - c rings and ambulance. They said they will be with c soon and to stay where they are. If ambulance now fails to turn up - liable. They assumed responsibility to c and c has relied upon this. C relied upon this statement, therefore did not drive to hospital himself. The ambulance did not turn up and c died. C relied on this to his detriment.
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control - Watson relied upon the board; they expressly stated in their rules and regulations that they would be responsible for providing medical care. C relied upon this and therefore did not arrange for his own medical care. C relied upon this to his detriment.
Parent-Child?
Parent has responsibility for their children to protect them from dangerous things. It must be shown that there is a breach, and also that the assumption of responsibility is complete.
Surtees v Royal Borough of Kingston upon-Thames
Parent assumed responsibility to protect child from overly hot water - child can reasonably rely on a parent to fill the bath before putting them in.
XA v YA
A parent doesn’t assume responsibility to prevent physical violence in an abusive relationship. The violent parent is responsible, not the other.
Ruby board/referee- players?
Depends on the scope of assumption of responsibility
Agar v Hyde
The board assumed a responsibility to propagate Rules, but not to ensure the safety of the member of every rugby playing fraternity.
Vowles v Evans
A rugby referee did assume responsibility for health of players on the pitch and was reasonable to rely upon the referee to properly enforce those rules to ensure people are safe.
Calvert v William Hill
It was arguable in this specific case that William Hill had assumed a responsibility to Calvert and Calvert in fact relied upon this to his detriment.
Clunis v Camden and Islington HA
C was released from mental health hold too early, treatment had not been successful. He went out and committed manslaughter. However, court’s won’t impose a duty of care on the basis of an assumption of responsibility where it contradicts autonomy principle. It is not reasonable to rely on a third party to prevent you committing crimes, even if suffering from mental health difficulties.
Wilson and Clyde Coal Co v English
The reasonable employer will ensure: safe equipment, competent employees, safe system of work and a safe workplace. Employers liability regards omissions as well as acts. Employers assume responsibility to keep employees safe, and employees rely on this.
Must responsibility be voluntarily assumed?
There’s some debate on this issue.
White v Jones: held that if C is acting out of a contractual or statutory function, this in itself can not exclude responsibility. However, it may be a circumstance to take into account when determining the nature and extent of the responsibility.
The role of reliance:
Reliance is central, unless relied upon, or reasonable to rely upon, there is unlikely to be a duty imposed.
