NEGLIGENCE DUTY OF

CARE
(CONTINUATION)

DR PRINCE UCHE AMADI

ASST. PROFESSOR OF LAW, COLLEGE OF LAW & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
 CURRENT ISSUES

• Pure Economic Loss/ Psychiatric Harm

• Omission to act
• Parental liability.
• Claims against public bodies
 NEGLIGENCE
DUTY OF CARE
OMISSIONS
OMISSIONS

• Can only be sued on where there is a duty to act

• Rescue
• Failure to protect
MORE ON OMISSIONS

• Generally no duty to act or warn: Smith v Littlewoods

• May be an assumption of responsibility – but rarely by public authorities: Barrett v MoD;
Mitchell v Glasgow; cf Kent v Griffiths
POLICE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES I

• No positive private law duty to act to protect against the risks created by criminals: Hill v
Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
• No proximity
• Contrary to public policy

• A similar rule applies to witnesses: Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

and others
 POLICE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES 11

• Followed in Osman v Ferguson Van Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police and Smith v Chief
Constable of Sussex Police
• These (unlike Hill) are all cases where proximity was at least arguably present.
• Reconfirmed in Michael v CC of South Wales
• Cf Munroe v London FB, Church of Christ v W Yorkshire FB
• We no longer refer to this as an immunity.
• It is simply the ordinary principle that there is no liability for omissions in the absence of a specific duty to act.
• While the police are under a public law duty to keep the peace prevent and detect crime, this does not translate
into a private law duty owed to individuals.
POLICE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES III

• Voluntary assumption of responsibility in limited cases: An Informer v A Chief

Constable
• More likely in relation to the ambulance service, in part due to link to NHS: Kent v
Griffiths
• Liability for actions on usual principles:
• Robinson v CC W Yorks
• Rigby v CC Northants
• Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC
NEGLIGENCE
DUTY OF CARE
FINAL ISSUES
 PUBLIC AUTHORITIES GENERALLY

• Actions for breach of statutory duty

• Actions based on a common law duty of care arising either from the imposition of the statutory duty or
from the performance of it.
• Misfeasance in public office (deliberate wrongdoing)
 COMMON LAW DUTY

• Where duty involves discretion, must be serious failure to exercise the discretion reasonably/abuse of power: Dorset
Yacht
• Where it is an operational duty, the authority acts through staff Gold v. Essex County Council; Cassidy v. Minister of
Health; Darnley
• Statutory power usually not equivalent to common law duty: Stovin v Wise; Gorringe v Calderdale
• Failure to protect = omission: Yuen Kun Yeu; Mitchell v Glasgow
PARENTAL LIABILITY

• Liability for actually harming - e.g. in road accidents

• Duty to protect/supervise: Harris v Perry
• As a matter of policy, judges reluctant to impose a legal duty in respect of emotional or
psychological harm resulting from the ‘wrong’ choice of school or other life choice:
Barrett v Enfield, OPO v MLA
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

• Article 2/3 –positive duty of the state to protect life/prevent torture or

inhuman/degrading treatment
• Osman v United Kingdom
• Successful claims have been rare, but see MPC v DSD and NBV – claims by victims
of the prolific serial rapist taxi driver John Worboys. Cf Michael