Third Parties: The Failure to Control, Supervise, or Detain Third-Parties Flashcards
This case relates to the ‘bolster boys’. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Dorset Yacht v Home Office). Bolster boys escape the place holding them, steal yacht, and crash it causing damage. Yacht owner sues the place holding them for negligence. Held: duty of care established. Ratio: Caparo test fulfilled ???- check ratio
This case relates to a home secretary releasing a prisoner. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(K v SSHD). The home secretary released a troubled criminal who was has already sexually harassed and committed burglary even-though he was advised to deport him. Criminal then rapes two children. Government sued for negligence. Held: no duty of care established. Ratio: Because it is a government official and law should not hinder their performance ???- check ratio.
This case relates to the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Hill v CC West Yorkshire Police). A serial killer who aims at a certain class of young girls (brunettes) took too long to find by the police so he killed another brunette and the family sued the police for negligence. Held: no duty of care. Ratio: fails on policy bases : the police should not be hindered by a heavy duty by the law; it would make them too hesitant. ???- is this ratio correct? are there others?
This case relates to a teacher’s weird relationship with one of his students. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Osman v Ferguson). A teacher who had an obsession with one of his students followed him home and killed his father and shot the student. Police knew of the unhealthy obsession, family sued for negligence. Held: no duty of care. Ratio: fails on policy basis, police should not be hindered by law it will make them hesitant in carrying out their duties. ??? - check ratio.
This case relates to a cheating woman who was killed by her husband. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Michael v CC of South Wales). Police call handler failed to properly direct the woman’s call after her husband threatened to kill her and was on his way back. Because of this the police got there late and she was killed. Held: no duty of care. Ratio: fails on grounds of policy. Police should not be hindered by the law it would make them hesitant in carrying out their duties.
This case relates to a child in nursery who ran into incoming traffic. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis). A nursery didn’t look out properly for the children so one ran out the nursery into traffic causing one person to swerve. That person died and his family sued. Held: duty of care established. Ratio: ??? - but I think it is simply that caparo fell in place.
This case relates to a fight that broke out in school. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Webster v Ridgeway Foundation School). A fight between kids went out of hand after the school hours and one kid used a sledgehammer on the claimant. Held: duty of care established. Ratio: school is responsible even after school to a reasonable time ie it was still foreseeable that there would be kids around.
This case involved to a psychiatrist ignoring a man saying he has urges for children. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Palmer v Tees HA). A patient released from a mental facility raped a child and murdered her after having confessed to the psychiatrist that he was urges towards children. The psychiatrist released him anyways. Family sues mental facility for negligence. Held: no duty of care. Ratio: proximity due to the fact that the incident happened a lot later than the release.
This case involved a mother reporting abuse to her child by neighbor’s child. Give facts, ratio, and verdict briefly.
(Merthy Tydfill County BC v C). A mother reported abuse to her child but the council did nothing about it and it happened again. Mother sued council in negligence. Held: duty of care established. Ratio: children ??? - why are children cases different exactly?
For cases involving third parties, what are the factors that are considered to pinpoint proximity? Further elaborate briefly on each.
1) Degree of control: the more the more likely proximity is to be found; 2) capacity to warn C: the more the more likely proximity is to be found; 3) Knowledge of third party’s propensity: specific knowledge is more likely to yield proximity than general knowledge, no knowledge no proximity; 4) temporal and geographic proximity; 5) relational proximity; 6) knowledge of C’s identity; and 7) an identifiable class ‘at special risk’.
What are the policy considerations used to limit claimant?
1) omissions are not like by UK law; 2) practical problems - like the flood gate, and police unable to carry duties easily; 3) resource diversion; and 4) conflict of duties.
