Liability of Public Bodies Flashcards
What is the principle established in X v Bedfordshire County Council (1995)?
Topic: Liability of Public Bodies
Principle: Public bodies can be liable for negligence, but special considerations apply to the scope of their duties.
Summary: Plaintiff sued social services for failing to protect children from abuse.
Outcome: The House of Lords held that public bodies may be immune from liability in certain contexts.
What was the outcome of the case R v Nottingham City Council (2006)?
Topic: Liability of Public Bodies (Omissions)
Principle: Public authorities may be liable for omissions if there is a clear duty of care.
Summary: Council’s failure to repair unsafe housing led to injury.
Outcome: The public body was found liable for failing to act within its duty.
In Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council (2001), what type of harm was the claimant suffering from?
Topic: Liability of Public Bodies (Local Authorities)
Principle: Public bodies may be liable for failures in decision-making or omissions that cause harm.
Summary: Claimant sued after suffering psychiatric harm caused by neglect by a local authority.
Outcome: Local authorities may be liable for negligent omission in child care cases.
True or False: Public bodies may be vicariously liable for the actions of their employees within the scope of employment.
True
What duty of care principle was established in Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978)?
Topic: Liability of Public Bodies (Duty of Care)
Principle: Public bodies can owe a duty of care in situations where harm is foreseeable due to their conduct.
Summary: A council was sued for negligently approving the construction of a building with defective foundations.
Outcome: The House of Lords recognized that public bodies can be liable for negligence, depending on circumstances.
What was the significant outcome of Osman v United Kingdom (1998)?
The European Court of Human Rights held the police Topic: Liability of Public Bodies (Police Liability)
Principle: Public bodies, such as the police, can be liable for failing to protect individuals from harm if a duty of care exists.
Summary: The plaintiff’s son was murdered after the police failed to take action despite knowing the threat.
Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights held the police had breached their duty of care had breached their duty of care.
Fill in the blank: Public authorities may not be held liable for negligence if they are performing duties under a _______.
[statutory authority]
What was the ruling in Kent v Griffiths (2000) regarding emergency services?
Topic: Liability of Public Bodies (Emergency Services)
Principle: Public bodies like the emergency services can be held liable if they fail to act reasonably in emergencies.
Summary: The ambulance service failed to respond quickly enough to an emergency call, and the plaintiff suffered harm.
Outcome: The court ruled that the ambulance service was liable for the delay in responding.
What type of negligence was established in O’Rourke v Camden Borough Council (1998)?
Topic: Liability of Public Bodies (Local Authorities)
Principle: Local authorities may be liable for negligent failure to act when they have a duty of care to protect individuals.
Summary: A woman was injured by a falling tree that the council had a duty to maintain.
Outcome: The court held the council liable for failing to maintain the tree and prevent the accident.
What was the outcome of Barrett v Ministry of Defence (1995) concerning military personnel?
Topic: Liability of Public Bodies (Duty to Safeguard Employees)
Principle: The Ministry of Defence can be held liable for failing to safeguard the welfare of military personnel.
Summary: A soldier was found dead after excessive alcohol consumption during a training exercise, and it was argued that his superiors had a duty of care.
Outcome: The court held that the Ministry of Defence was liable due to the failure to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of its employees.
