THE DUTY OF CARE: OMISSIONS; PUBLIC AUTHORITIES; AND NON-DELEGABLE DUTIES

Question 1

Gorringe V Calerdale

Answer 1

when road services failed to warn people about a blind bend, public law duty to do this
DON’T HAVE ANY OBLIGATION IN PRIVATE LAW

Question 2

Mitchell V Glasgow

Answer 2

where they failed to give warning about a tenants meeting to be evicted leading him to lash out on fellow tenants.

OMISSION: no control over tenants AND did not assume responsibility

In favour of NOT giving a DOC in omission cases.

Per Lord Hope: ‘if to attach liability… is it fair just and reasonable?’

Question 3

Micheal V Chief Constable of South Wales

Answer 3

Micheal killed due to police carelessness of not turning up AND foreseeable there would be death and injury…
HOWEVER no liability.

No DOC owed where police fail to respond to 999 cail.
No claim in negligence as NO sufficient relay between police and wrongdoer.

Question 4

LORD TOULSON’S TWO BASES FOR EXCEPTION:

Answer 4

1. where D has position of control over T and should of forseen the likelihood of T causing damage to someone in close proximity if D failed to take reasonable care in exercise of that control
2. D assumes a positive responsibility to safeguard T

Question 5

Woodland V Swimming Teachers Association

Answer 5

Essex County Council respon for school C attends, where swimming lessons is part of the school timetable. In swimming lesson, Maxwell, teacher, is negligent and Woodland drowns and is injured.

DOC is owed, held by Lord Sumption in SC.
EEC had a non-delegable duty for Woodland, thus liable.

Question 6

CRITERA FOR NON-DELEGABLE DUTY

Per Lord Sumption

Answer 6

• C. esp vunerable/dependent on D protection
• antecedent relay between C & D : placing C in actual custody/charge/care of D and where it is possible to impute to D the assumption of positive duty to protect C from harm.
• C. no control over how D performs obligations
• D has delegated to a 3rd party some function which is integeral part of positive duty which has been assumed towards C
• Third party has been negligent in the performance of a v. function assumed by D & delegated by D to him.

Question 7

NA v Nottinghamshire

Answer 7

foster parent and foster child
NO DOC owed
too broad and demanding on local authorites.

Question 8

Home Office V Dorset Yacht Company

Answer 8

Home Office responsible for prisons and young offenders institutes: rehabilitation focus

Go on camping trip : overnight, guard falls asleep.
OMISSION of job. boys sneak out and steal yacht, causing significant damages.
court argued: guards in position of control and RF damage could be caused if job not executed properly.

LIABLE.
also said, if they had got further away, not liable. had to be damage caused by act of escape.
NSW V Godfrey 2004

Question 9

NSW V Godfrey 2004

Answer 9

prisoner escapes and robs a shop 3 months later.
shop try to claim: not liable. if he had done so on escape, different.
they cannot be held liable just because they are aware of a prisoner.

Question 10

Stovin V Wise

Answer 10

the availability of a private law claim in negligence in respect of a failure of a LA to comply w/public law discretion.

FACTS: LA aware of bank of land obstucting view where 3 accidents happened.
C. injured in another crash and brought claim against LA.

ISSUE: could LA be found to owe a CL DOC if it had not complied w/public law obligation.

HELD: HL allowed authorities appeal.
Highways Act allowed LA the power to remove obstuctions. statutory power did not give CL claim for non-performance.

Not F, J & R to impose a duty in these circumstances.

Question 11

Lord Hoffman in Stovin V Wise

Answer 11

positive conduct: ACT
different legal consequences to an omission…

different due to political/moral/economic issues.

Question 12

BYSTANDER OMISSIONS:

Answer 12

No duty to intervene and prevent harm:
OSTERLIND V HILL
D watched while people drowned and not req to rescue.
E. law does not impose a liability on D when event caused by C or a third party.
Generally no liability for failure to rescue them.

Question 13

once involved…

Answer 13

DUTY OWED:

assuming responsibility : declaring helper liable.
if they act in reliance on your statement and in bigger trouble… LIABLE.

Question 14

bystanders claiming…

Answer 14

virtually impossible due to the definition in

McFarlanes V EE caledonia.
man witnessing explosion on an oil rig
REJECTED CLAIM

Question 15

Rescuers claim:

Answer 15

suffer trauma as a result of rescue…

CHADWICK V BRB 1967:
dragged by police to rescue ppl from train crash
he WAS able to claim even though he didnt know anyone injured.
special rule for rescuers???

HOWEVER:
in White V Chief constable of South Yorkshire:
NO CLAIM: no special rule for rescuers, need to fit into primary/secondary victim claim.

Question 16

duty of employees

Answer 16

special relay and assumption of responsibility: LIABLE

those in positions to help:
once act on situation, they assume the critera and need to better OR keep the same… cannot worsen the situation.

THUS doc owed. e.g. Reeves V Met police

Question 17

REEVES V MET POLICE

Answer 17

committed suicide : AR and charge of Reeves welfare when in the cell.
that he will not leave the cell worse off than when he entered them.

Question 18

SPECIAL OBLIGATION?

Answer 18

CERTAIN relays give automatic assumption of responsibility e.g. doctor and patient
not to make patient worse, oath in law

OTHER relays: e.g. sol/client

coming into contact w person, owe a duty NOT to make it worse by omissions
DUTY TO DO SOMETHING

Question 19

Kent V Griffiths

Answer 19

C. asthmatic, GP there, called 999 and the ambulance stated they would be there shortly. C relied on this instead of driving, amb never came.
LIABLE
no need to rely on AR, but as she did, liable.

Question 20

Watson V British Boxing Board of Control

Answer 20

Watson suffered traumatic brain injuries from fight. Assumed adequate medicial support would be on side to help, wasnt and thus became worse off.

As he relied on BBBC to give right advice, he did not give extra medical cover, not treated properly leading to him being MUCH worse off.
if you AR and dont meet standard: WILL BE LIABLE.

Question 21

What is a non-delegable duty?

Answer 21

ordinary principle: ‘is displaced and the duty extends beyond being careful, procuring careful performance of work delegated to others.’

In Woodland V STA the ECC had a non-delgable duty to keep vun. party, woodland safe and therefore makes them liable.
Where D employs an independent contractor to perform a function, of which becomes inherently hazardous/liable to become so in course of work.

Question 22

Rylands V Fletcher

Answer 22

duty of D to prevent escape of water from reservoir due to operations of an independent contractor : NON-DELEGABLE

Question 23

When is there a duty? Per Lord Sumption

Answer 23

i. C, vunerable/dependent on D protection against risk of injury
ii. seperate ancedecent relationship between C and D
w/element of control placing C under charge of D where a positive duty to protect the C from harm has been assumed.
iii. C has no control over how D performs obligations.
iv. D delegated to a third party some integral part of the duty where 3rd party is exercising that purpose, D care of C, w/the attendant in control.
v. 3rd party negligent in performance of relevant function assumed responsibility.

Question 24

Liability of police officers?

Answer 24

re-establsihed in micheal v chief constable of south wales:

NOT liable for omissions as long as not two critera
do not have special relay w/any random person on the street.
NO reason to treat police officers differently from anyone else.

when they injure someone by ACT and injury is RF: DOC owed e.g. Robinson

Question 25

someone injured by a police officers omission?

Answer 25

No DOC unless… (Rylands V Fletcher)

1. they have a level of control,
2. assumed responsibility
   e. g. Dorset yachts v home office.

Question 26

DOC owed…

Answer 26

Omission of PA: NO duty to compensate if failure to perform.
e.g. Stovin V Wise / Mitchell V Glasgow
do not owe a private duty.
regulatory power gives power to ACT not a correspondence to HAVE to act