Public Bodies and Duty of Care Flashcards
What is the general rule regarding public bodies and duty of care?
A) Public bodies are subject to the same negligence principles as private individuals
B) Public bodies are automatically liable if they fail in their statutory duties
C) Public bodies are never liable for their decisions
D) Public bodies owe a higher duty of care than private individuals
A) Public bodies are subject to the same negligence principles as private individuals
Explanation:
Public bodies may owe a duty of care if the ordinary principles of negligence indicate that a duty should exist (CN and GN v Poole Borough Council 2019).
When will a public body NOT owe a duty of care?
A) When its actions are incompatible with its statutory powers
B) When it has assumed responsibility for an individual’s welfare
C) When the act is an operational failing rather than a policy decision
D) When there is clear foreseeability of harm
A) When its actions are incompatible with its statutory powers
Explanation:
A duty will not be imposed if it would conflict with the intentions of the statutory scheme under which the public body operates (CN and GN v Poole Borough Council 2019).
In which case did the court rule that the police do NOT owe a duty of care to unidentified members of the public?
A) Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council
B) Jebson v Ministry of Defence
C) Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
D) Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire
C) Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Explanation:
The police were not liable for failing to prevent the Yorkshire Ripper’s crimes because the victim was not an identifiable individual at specific risk (Hill v Chief Constable 1989).
What is the key distinction courts make when assessing public body liability?
A) Whether the case involves an operational failing or a policy decision
B) Whether the public body has been sued before
C) Whether the public body is government-funded
D) Whether the public body acted intentionally
A) Whether the case involves an operational failing or a policy decision
Explanation:
Courts do not impose liability for policy decisions, but may for operational failings (Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire 1985).
A social worker misdiagnoses a child’s learning disability, leading to inadequate educational support. Could the local authority be liable?
A) No, because the child was not physically harmed
B) No, because educational services are discretionary
C) Yes, because the local authority assumed responsibility for the child’s education
D) Yes, but only if the child’s parents were not consulted
C) Yes, because the local authority assumed responsibility for the child’s education
Explanation:
In Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council (2000), a duty was imposed because the local authority had assumed responsibility for the child’s educational services.
A soldier is injured while attempting to climb onto a moving army vehicle after a night out. Could the Ministry of Defence be liable?
A) Yes, because the commander had assumed responsibility for the soldier’s safety
B) No, because soldiers accept risks as part of their job
C) No, because public bodies cannot be sued for negligence
D) Yes, but only if the soldier was ordered to climb the vehicle
A) Yes, because the commander had assumed responsibility for the soldier’s safety
Explanation:
In Jebson v Ministry of Defence (2000), a duty of care was owed because the commander had assumed responsibility for the safe transport of soldiers.
The police fire CS gas into a building, causing a fire. Could they be liable for the resulting damage?
A) No, because they were responding to a crime
B) No, because police decisions are always protected
C) Yes, because the use of CS gas was an operational failing
D) Yes, but only if the gas was used without permission
C) Yes, because the use of CS gas was an operational failing
Explanation:
In Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985), the police were liable for failing to take fire precautions when using CS gas.
A council places a family next to violent neighbours. The family later suffers harm. Could the council be liable?
A) No, because councils cannot control private individuals
B) No, because the family did not sign a legal agreement
C) Yes, because the council created the risk
D) Yes, but only if the council promised to relocate them
C) Yes, because the council created the risk
Explanation:
In CN and GN v Poole Borough Council (2019), liability was rejected, but courts have previously considered whether placing someone in a dangerous situation creates a duty.
A police officer is warned that a violent suspect has made threats to harm a specific person. The officer does nothing, and the suspect later attacks the victim. Could the police be liable?
A) No, because the police do not owe a duty to individuals
B) Yes, because the victim was an identifiable individual at risk
C) No, because the attacker was acting independently
D) Yes, but only if the officer was off-duty at the time
D) Yes, but only if the officer was off-duty at the time
Explanation:
A duty may be imposed if the victim is specifically identifiable, unlike in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989). However, the officer’s status at the time may affect liability.
A hospital fails to act on a known patient safety risk, leading to preventable deaths. Could the NHS Trust be liable?
A) No, because hospitals cannot guarantee patient safety
B) No, because the affected patients had private healthcare
C) Yes, because failing to act on a known risk is an operational failing
D) Yes, but only if the hospital was warned about the risk in advance
D) Yes, but only if the hospital was warned about the risk in advance
Explanation:
Public bodies can be liable for operational failings, particularly in healthcare settings where a duty of care is assumed (Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council 2000), but liability often depends on prior warnings.
