DOC-->Public Authorities

Question 1

Why has the court reduced the scope of the duties of care that public authorities owe?

Answer 1

• Reduce depletion of public funds,
• Reduce detrimental impact upon the performance of public functions
• Reduce undue interference in government matters.

Question 2

Why have public bodies become increasingly attractive targets for negligence actions?

Answer 2

• Deep pockets to pay out substantial awards, and
• The array of powers and duties under which they operate make them vulnerable to a wide variety of allegations of negligence.

Question 3

Public Policy: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)

and various factors affecting outcome?

Answer 3

-Yorkshire Ripper–> not prevented from murdering C’s daughter
-led to blanket immunity of police.
–>HOL recognised that liability could be avoided on ‘public policy grounds’.
–>Police owe no general duty of care to a particular individual.
various factors–> fear of defensive policing,The appropriate bodies to monitor police efficiency are the bodies appointed for that purpose, rather than the courts,Undesirable diversion of police resources.

Question 4

Robinson v Chief Constable for West Yorkshire Police [2018]

Answer 4

-clear that public authorities do not have blanket immunity in tort: see e.g. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
-There is generally no special position for public authorities.
-

Question 5

DOC–>Child Abuse Cases

Answer 5

• Barrett v London Borough of Enfield (1999)–>not unreasonable to impose DOC on local authority for a child in its are and ultimately that responsibility of the child was to the local authority- there was a DOC

JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust (2005)–>Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on local authorities in relation to decisions regarding whether children should be removed from parents and taken into care.
–>Parents are incorrectly and negligently accused of harming or abusing their child.

RECENT CASE: CN v Poole BC [2017] –>children who suffered from physical and learning difficulties placed in a council house–>family who engaged in anti-social behavior nearby –>council ignored this.

Question 6

DOC–>Emergency Services–>fire service

Answer 6

Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council –>fire made worse by fire services
–>Hill approach extended to fire service

Question 7

DOC–>Emergency Services–>Ambulance

Answer 7

Kent v Griffiths [2001] –>By accepting the call, they had established a duty of care and therefore liability was valid.

Question 8

DOC–>Emergency Services–>Police

Answer 8

• Robinson
• Michael V Chief Constable South Wales Police –> V calls police to tell them her ex-bf dragged her BF and threatened to kill him–>police misunderstood kill for hit ->not negligence and so no DOC.

Question 9

DOC–>Emergency Services–>NHS

Answer 9

Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2017] –>currently awaiting SC judgment. Man goes into A&E with a head injury, is not graded properly and he is told to wait 4 hours, refuses and goes home. Later develops brain injury.