Games Movies TV Wikis

Fandom uses cookies to give you the best experience on our websites. By continuing to use Fandom, we assume that
you accept our use of cookies. Read more about cookies

START A WIKI

Case Briefs
Contribute

On the Wiki

Wiki Activity Random page Videos Images

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd.

Edit Comments 0 Share

Contents [show] Home Office v Dorset Yacht

Co. Ltd.
Facts Edit

Several "borstal boys" (young offenders between fifteen and twenty)

were under the supervision of three officers when they were working
on an island. The officers went to sleep and left them to their work.
Seven of the boys escaped, stole a yacht and crashed it into another
yacht that was owned by Dorset Yacht. They also boarded the Citation Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd., [1970]
second yacht and caused further damage. The Home Office appealed AC 1004

Dorset's ability to bring a claim to the House of Lords. Appellant The Home Office of the United
Kingdom

Issue Edit Respondent Dorset Yacht Company

Limited
1. Does the fact that competent adults performed the negligent
Year 1970
acts break the chain of causation?
Court House of Lords
2. Can you be liable for the tortious actions of another party
towards a third party? Judges Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Pearson,
Diplock, and Viscount Dilhorne

Country United
Decision Edit
Kingdom
Appeal dismissed, trial allowed. Area of Remoteness
law

Reasons Edit Issue Does the fact that competent adults

performed the negligent acts break the chain
It is established that the result would not have occurred if the officers of causation?
were not negligent and had continued to monitor the boys. There are
three claims by the Home Office that must be dealt with:

1. there is no authority to impose a duty like this;

2. no person can be liable for the acts of another adult who is not their servant or acting on their behalf; and
3. public policy requires that the officers should be immune from this duty.

Lord Reid, for the majority, dismisses the first defence saying that times have changed and now liability can be
found in cases where the outcome was not foreseeable. All that needs to be established is that the initial act was
negligent (per Wagon Mound), which has been established here. They also reject the second defence stating that
this claim is negated if the action of the third party is the type of result that could reasonably be foreseen as a result
of the negligent act. In this case, the stealing of the boat and damaging another is exactly the type of outcome that
should have been foreseen by the officers. Finally, the third defence fails because there are no obvious public policy
issues that prevent the duty from being established.

Lord Diplock concurs but has different reasoning. He says that in general, in new situations where duty is being
established the characteristics of that situation must be compared to those present in situations accepted to
constitute negligence. When there is a discrepancy one must decide if what the new case is lacking is enough to
prevent duty from being established. In this case he decides that the fact that they were on an island made the
escape by boat a very foreseeable outcome of the negligence, and therefore it should have been prevented.

Viscount Dilhorne, in the dissentalisation, disagrees with the majority because he thinks that they are enacting new
laws, which should be the job of legislators and not the courts.

Ratio Edit

When determining if liability exists in a new situation:

the situation must be compared to existing situations which constitute negligence to determine certain
characteristics;
those circumstances must be analysed to see if they give rise to a duty of care; and
if there is a discrepancy, it must be determined if the discrepancy is sufficient to prevent a duty of care
from arising.

Liability is not necessarily negated simply because a third party performed the act that caused damage as a
result of the initial negligent act; if this action was a foreseeably outcome of the initial act then the original
negligent party will be responsible for the outcome of the third partys actions.

Categories: Tort law Remoteness Cases from the United House of Lords Add category
Kingdom cases
 Also on Fandom Random Wiki

Games

Movies

TV

Explore Wikis

Follow Us
Overview
About

Careers

Press

Contact

Wikia.org

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Global Sitemap

Local Sitemap

Community
Community Central

Support

Fan Contributor Program

WAM Score

Help

Community Apps
Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat.

Advertise
Media Kit

Contact

Case Brief Wiki is a Fandom Lifestyle Community. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.

Logitech Final Fantasy Civilization