| Part of a series on common law |
| English tort law |
|---|
 |
| Negligence |
| Trespass |
| Occupiers' liability |
| Defamation |
| Strict liability |
| Nuisance |
OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [1997] 3 All ER 897 is an English court case concerned with negligence from the King's Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales with particular regard to the duty of care owed by the emergency services. Her Majesty's Coastguard do not usually owe a duty of care to people who require its assistance.
In this case, it was claimed His Majesty's Coastguard had failed to respond in an adequate period of time to the Lyme Bay canoeing disaster where four school children died after getting into difficulty while on a school trip in Lyme Bay, Dorset. [1] The parent company of the outdoor centre that ran the trip, OLL Ltd, settled several claims with the victims and was seeking a contribution from the Secretary of State for Transport, [2] under whose remit HM Coastguard falls as an executive agency. [3]
The issue boiled down to whether the coastguard owed a duty of care to those it was aware required its assistance (other cases had held that the police and firefighters did not owe such a duty, see below). It was held that HM Coastguard did not owe a duty of care to those requiring its assistance unless they actively made the situation worse, rather than by omission, as was the case here. [4] As such, the claim was dismissed and the hire company were forced to foot the bill for the entirety of the compensation. However, this case did not reach the appeals courts: the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and the House of Lords [5] and so this rule could easily change, should a further, similar case, reach the higher courts.
Negligence per se is a doctrine in US law whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute. The doctrine is effectively a form of strict liability.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence in English law, being an act of homicide committed by a company or organisation. In general, in English criminal law, a juristic person is in the same position as a natural person, and may be convicted for committing many offences. The Court of Appeal confirmed in one of the cases following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster that a company can, in principle, commit manslaughter, although all defendants in that case were acquitted.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council[1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC 728 was a decision of the House of Lords that established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence, called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. The case was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991].
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:
In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.
In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, in order to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability will be imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.
In English tort law, there can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant establishes both that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that duty. The defendant is in breach of duty towards the claimant if their conduct fell short of the standard expected under the circumstances.
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.
The Lyme Bay canoeing disaster occurred in Lyme Bay, southern England on 22 March 1993. Four teenagers died after getting into difficulty while on a sea kayaking trip from Lyme Regis to Charmouth. The incident led to reforms in the way in which activity centres were accredited in the United Kingdom and the passage of The Activity Centres Act 1995.
Legal malpractice is the term for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract by a lawyer during the provision of legal services that causes harm to a client.
Administrative liability in English law is an area of law concerning the tortious liability of public bodies in English law. The existence of private law tort applying to public bodies is a result of Diceyan constitutional theory suggesting that it would be unfair if a separate system of liability existing for government and officials. Therefore, a public body which acts ultra vires is liable in tort is a cause of action can be established just like any individual would be. An ultra vires action will not, per se, give rise to damages Therefore, a claimant will have to fit into one of the recognised private law courses of action. These areas in which a public body can incur private liability in tort were described by Lord Browne Wilkinson in X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353 (HL).
Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 All ER 474 is an English tort law case from the Court of Appeal concerning negligence, particularly the duty of care owed by the emergency services; particularly the ambulance service. The emergency services do not generally owe a duty of care to the public except in certain, limited circumstances (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53.
X and others (minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353 was a series of five linked appeals which reached the House of Lords in 1995. The case is an important authority relating to administrative liability in English law. The cases concerned claims for personal injury arising out of a statutory duty and negligence by Bedfordshire County Council. It was claimed that the claimants had suffered parental neglect and abuse which the Council had known about but which the Council had failed to prevent this abuse. The Council successfully argued that they didn't owe a duty to the claimants because of the potential floodgates that this would open to future cases.
Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc , 2017 SCC 63 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the duty of care that auditors have toward their clients during the course of a professional engagement.
The civil liability of a recreational diver may include a duty of care to another diver during a dive. Breach of this duty that is a proximate cause of injury or loss to the other diver may lead to civil litigation for damages in compensation for the injury or loss suffered.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police[2018] UKSC 4 is a leading English tort law case on the test for finding a duty of care. An elderly woman was injured by two police officers attempting to arrest a suspect and she claimed that the police owed her a duty of care not to be put in danger. The UK Supreme Court found that the police did owe a duty of care in this case as there was no general rule that the police are not under any duty of care when performing their duties.