Table of Content
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd UKHL 2, AC 1004 is a leading case in English tort law. 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 , which has been established here.
She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. Proxy Decision-Making on Behalf of Incapacitated Adults Evaluate the current mechanisms and provisions and the proposals for reform in respect of proxy decision-making on behalf of incapacitated adults....
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd: Download Judgment
Public policy was also in favour of making HO liable. Borstal officers were required to supervise young offenders who were working on Brown Sea Island, however the officers left the boys unsupervised. Several of the young offenders then stole a boat and crashed it into the yacht of the Claimant. It was found the Home Office owed a duty of care as they were in a position of control over the 3rd party who caused the damage which was considered foreseeable by the court. Several "borstal boys" 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.
None of those three officers was on duty at the material time. Control and supervision of the Defendants’ officers. If the custodians have knowledge of a prisoner’s particular propensities. Caused by a young child who had escaped from a school adjoining a highway.
Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:
On 21 September 1962, ten borstal trainees were working on Brownsea Island in Poole Harbour under the control of three officers employed by the Home Office. Seven trainees escaped one night, at the time the officers had retired to bed leaving the trainees to their own devices. The seven trainees who escaped boarded a yacht and collided with another yacht, the property of the respondents, and damaged it. The owners of the yacht sued the Home Office in negligence for damages. The case also addressed the liability of government bodies, a person's liability for the acts of third parties that he has facilitated, and liability for omissions.
Therefrom and do damage which is reasonably foreseeable. ” vicarious beneficiary of a breach of duty to another “. The significant facts (i.e. the alleged facts) can shortly be summarised. Which could or might result in their being able to recover some damages. Dereliction of duty is widespread among prison or Borstal officers. Trainees and on the other hand the public interest of promoting rehabilitation.
Personal tools
Any duty of care owed by the officers to the plaintiff in civil law. Characteristics of conduct and relationships which give rise to legal liability. The claimants alleged negligence causing them personal injury and other losses arising from pollution from mining operations of the defendants in Zambia. In the Court of Appeal the defendants’ appeals were dismissed. Home Office as vicariously liable for the ” negligence ” of the Borstal officers.
Seven of the boys escaped, stole a yacht and crashed it into another yacht that was owned by Dorset Yacht. They also boarded the second yacht and caused further damage. The Home Office appealed Dorset's ability to bring a claim to the House of Lords.
Court of Appeal
Has to consider the suggested reasons for not applying the principle here. To happen unless the Defendants’ officers took precautions to prevent it. And instruction will take place within the institution. ” Borstal institutions, that is to say, places in which offenders . Hands of those who have ceased to be under the control of the authorities. By the occupiers of premises to those lawfully upon them are well established.
To the means by which they are to achieve a particular public purpose. Extended powers of release conferred upon the Home Secretary. And caused an accident on the highway to a driver trying to avoid him. Of relevance to the issue of law in the present appeal. In question differs from the kind of conduct discussed inDonoghuev. Is some special relationship between you such as that of bailor and bailee.
The preliminary hearing found for the Dorset Yacht Co. that there was, in law, a duty of care and that the case could go forward for trial on its facts. The Home Office argued that it could owe no duty of care as there was no precedent for any duty on similar facts. Further, it was argued that there could be no liability for the actions of a third party and that the Home Office should be immune from legal action owing to the public nature of its duties. 3 Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged a boat. Since the risk was manifest (they knew of the boys’ criminal records etc), HO was liable.
” with reference to the control of actions or conduct of the third person. Proof of want of care amounting to a breach of duty towards a neighbour. Are proved would there be owed to the Company ” any duty of care . Lessness would probably result in the trainees causing damage of this kind.
The conclusion follows that a duty of care does arise in the case for decision. Their failure to exercise them was held to be negligence. They had statutory powers the exercise of which would have prevented that. Not necessary for him to decide that such a special duty of care existed. ” prisoners in safe custody could not give the plaintiffs a right of action. Determine, in my opinion, the question whether a duty of care exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment