Essay: How duty of care has developed in the law of negligence (Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire)

Delict Essay
This essay aims to discuss the importance of the “Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4” and how overtime a duty of care has been developed in the law of negligence. This case explores the ambiguity surrounding the amount of duty of care, if any, a police officer has. When a claimant got injured during a police chase, she aimed to sue based on personal injury and negligent actions by the police officer. However, the defence regressed this argument by claiming that police were ‘immune’ to such claims. The aim of this essay is to explore the proceedings and analyse the extent of duty of care the police have and how this case has impacted police duty of care in the law of negligence. Firstly, this essay shall explore the development of a ‘duty of care’, through the use of Donoghue V Stevenson. Secondly, the Caparo test will be explained in its application of detecting whether there is a duty of care. Finally, the Robinson case shall be analysed by establishing all relevant cases and their applications from the first hearing to the final appeal.
A ‘duty of care’, is an obligation in which the law imposes onto one individual, whereby they must ensure that a certain standard of care for another induvial is upheld. This obligation is imposed to safeguard the wellbeing and safety of others. If there is a breach in an individual’s duty of care, they are then held liable on the basis of endangerment to others.
In the law of negligence, the case of “Donoghue V Stevenson 1932” established an adequate basis in relation to a duty of care. Additionally, this case founded the “neighbourhood principle”, which to this very day is adopted for negligence and duty of care related cases.
In the above case, Mrs Donoghue went into a café with her friend, it was found that the ginger beer she was drinking had the remains of a decomposed snail. As a result of this she suffered from gastro – enteritis.
This issue surrounding this case was that Mrs Donoghue had not bought the drink herself, meaning that she had no contract with the other party. However, she decided to sue the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. Upon the court case, it was found that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the end user. The ‘neighbourhood’ test was implemented to impact the judgement by the House of Lords. Lord Atkin, posits:
“Person who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
The neighbourhood principle’s, positive approach did not survive the decade in establishing a duty of care prior to the ‘Anne V Merton London Borough Council [1978]’ case. This brought change to the law of negligence. Tenants of flats pursued the councils for their erection upon inadequate foundations, which resulted in cracks within the walls. It was held that the local authority owed a duty of care to the pursuers, their failure in noticing the issue endangered the residents, thus resulting a breach in their duty of care.
Lord Wilberforce proposed a two-stage test to identify a duty of care in the law of negligence. The first part of the stage adopted Lord Atkin’s ‘neighbourhood’ principle, which is if the defender should have foreseen that his conduct would injure the pursuer then a duty of care would arise. The second part involved confirming whether there were any factors which would reduce the duty of care owed.
A landmark case, having historical significance in establishing a duty of care, is ‘Caparo V Dickman 1990’ . In this case the claimants were shareholders in a company, who relied on an audit made by the defenders. The claimants purchased shares in the company which had been audited, and it was made an unsuccessful takeover bid resulting in them losing money. They attempted to sue the auditors in negligence however, the House of Lords held that no duty of care owed by the defenders. They were held to be not liable as it failed the 3rd part of the ‘Tripartite Test’; which is to do with proximity or neighbourhood required between both parties. In claims involving economic loss, there must be a common purpose such as a proximate relationship with the reliance and actual reliance. Reference
The ‘Caparo V Dickman 1990’ case developed the ‘Tripartite Test’ which is used to establish if there is a duty of care owed by one individual to another. The 3 stages which are used to determine a duty of care, firstly considers the harm that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defender’s conduct. Secondly, the parties must be in a relationship of proximity. Lastly it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
The ‘Tripartite Test’ is still considered to be good law, however it is not a standard test for the imposition of a duty of care currently. This test will apply to novel situations, where a precedent or analogy do not provide the courts with an answer. Therefore, the court would need to go beyond established principles in order to decide whether a duty of care is owed.
‘Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police 2018’ questions whether or not the police are liable for injuries imposed to an innocent third party during an arrest. This case involves the pursuer who got injured during an arrest, resulting in her attempted claims of both personal injury and assault by the police officer (DS Willian).
The ‘Hill V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1988’ case was significant in setting the precedent for the general duty of the police in preventing crimes and accidents from occurring. In this case the pursuer’s daughter (Jacqueline Hill) was the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper). He had committed previous murders over several years. Jacqueline’s mother decided to act against the Chief Constable on the grounds that the police had been negligent in their detection and their failure to detain Sutcliffe, which would have prevented her daughters murder.
Police officers could be held liable in situations which injury to a person is caused through the direct result of their actions or omissions. However, Jacqueline Hill was a member of the public in which she suffered injury as a result of a criminal’s activity. The pursuer claims that failure to apprehend Sutcliffe, created an exceptional added risk. Moreover, this differs in incidences of general risk to the public. Although, it did increase the risk of injury, it did not place the pursuers daughter at a ‘special risk’ (reference); the law does not enforce a private law duty towards individual members of the public.
A case which develops the law surrounding whether or not the police owe a duty of care under the law of negligence is ‘Michael and others V Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015]’. Ms Michael dialled 999 requesting police protection from her ex – boyfriend who had come to her house and found her with another man, tensions escalated quickly. However, the police operator thought she heard “hit you” rather than “kill you”, which categorised the incident to a ‘G2’, which should be responded within 60 minutes; whereas a threat to life would be classed as an emergency. 15 minutes after the first call Ms Michael calls again, in which she could be heard screaming, the police arrive 8 minutes later to find her dead.
Key issues which arose in determining whether the police owed a common law duty of care to Ms Michael, if they had assumed responsibility to take reasonable care for Ms Michaels safety, and if they had arguably breached Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
They considered whether the ‘Interveners Liability Principle’ applied, raising the question if the police owe a duty of care, and as to whether or not the police are aware of a threat to the life. However, this argument was rejected on the basis that it could not be limited to potential victims. It was argued that the police priorities should not affected the risk of being sued under the law of negligence, and therefore, they were not held liable in this case.
The court referred to a large list of cases which the courts had previously used to determine if a private duty is owed to a member of the public, where crimes are involves. This case is analogous to ‘Hill V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2015’; both involve victims who suffered injuries through a 3rd party, and on both occasions, indirect omissions or acts from the police officers themselves.
The ‘Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2018’ case had developed the duty of care in the law of negligence, and this has come to the decision through the previously stated cases.
The ‘Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 2018’ case, involves Mrs Robinson, an elderly woman, who was knocked to the ground during an attempted arrest of a drug dealer. She suffered injuries due to the suspect refusing arrest. She decided to sue the officers involved however, this was held that the police did not owe a duty of care. The reasoning for this was that they do not owe a duty of care to the public at large, only to those sufficiently proximate.
The main case impacting the decision of the first hearing was ‘Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire’. The rationale behind their judgement is based on their belief that this case ‘showed’ that the police were immune to liability claims. This decision was corroborated within the subsequent hearing. whereby the analogous ‘Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales’ case confers that the police do not owe a duty of care to the claimant.
Despite these findings, a final appeal to the supreme court reversed the decision regarding the police ‘immunity’; positing that they do indeed owe a duty of care. The rationale behind the revised decision is based upon the findings that ‘Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire’ was misunderstood during the first hearing. The defenced used this case to argue that police were immune to negligence liability. However, the case never stated this as fact, it instead referred police to being liable in tort as a direct result of acts or omissions, including those during operational conduct. The final appeal resulted in the law being changed to: if a third party is injured due to a negligent arrest, the police are liable if the injury was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the officer’s actions. This impacted the case, due to the officers accepting that there was risk involved, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that the suspect would resist arrest; evident from the police officers request for backup. Therefore, the outcome of the case led to the claimant being owed a duty of care from the police officers. However, the claim would only be subjected to the police as an authority, rather than the officer who directly caused the injury.
A duty of care has been an established legal process that has been developed from the Donoghue V Stevenson act, alongside the Caparo V Dickman case, a test to decide who owes a duty of care was developed. However, this found not to be fully comprehensive, as highlighted in its lack of approval in the Robinson case. The ‘Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire’ case, has impacted the development of a duty of care in the law of negligence. From the verdict of this case, police shall no longer be deemed as ‘immune’ to public, rather there shall be exceptional circumstances to consider before determining if they are liable. The foreseeable risk that is required, would now be expected to be analysed prior to making decisions. If it has showed that a risk assessment has been made and the police still follow through with their actions, and this is the cause of personal injury they will then be liable. However, it is still inconclusive how this will truly impact other cases in the future, and whether analogous shall be taken to the supreme court as well.