Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Public Authority Liability - Coggle Diagram
Public Authority Liability
Duty of Care
D created/increased the danger by a positive act
the 'making it worse principle'
would have been better off the the authority had done nothing at all
Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC
D assumed responsibility for C specifically (above acting for the common good/public interest)
then owes C duty as an individual
emergency services
fire brigade
owes a duty to owners of building on fire but NOT to any individual owner
Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC
police
duty to protect the public at large but NOT any specific individual
Kent v Griffiths
ambulance
when accepts 999 call assumes personal responsibility for caller
Kent v Griffiths
health authorities
owes direct duty of care to patient in their hospital
road safety
highway authority does NOT owe duty of care to any individual road user
to improve roads, signage etc.
social work
schemes intended to confer benefits on the public NOT any individuals
X v Bedfordshire County Council
JD v East Berkshire Community Health Trust
N v Poole Borough Council
HXA v Surrey County Council. YXA v Wolverhampton City Council
D in a proximate relationship + policy reasons (Caparo)
D owed a duty completely unconnected with statutory duties/functions
Preliminary Matters
i) East Suffolk principle
public authority does not automatically owe duty of care because of its statutory duty/power
requires something extra
even where public authority failed to exercise power or even duty (pure omission)
Stovin v Wise
Gorringe v Calderdale MBC
Furnell v Flaherty (t/as Godstone Farm)
even when positive act committed
Jain v Trent Strategic HA
East Suffolk River Catchment Board v Kent
ii) policy vs operational distinction
public authority may owe common law duty of care unless it is inconsistent with the legislation which its powers/duties are derived from
operational - where it is the practical way in which they have carried out the power/duty may be found negligent
iii) pure omissions principle
courts reluctant to impose duty for failure to act
Stovin v Wise
policy issues
Breach/causation/remedies as normal
