228:- and done damage. But there is never a case in our law books when the prison authorities have been liable for it. No householder who has been burgled, no person who has been wounded by a criminal, has ever recovered damages from the prison authorities; such as to find a place in the reports. The householder has claimed on his insurance company. The injured man can now claim on the compensation fund. None has claimed against the prison authorities. Should we alter all this: I should be reluctant to do so if, by so doing, we should hamper all the good work being done by our prison authorities... I can see the force of this argument. But I do not think it should prevail. I think that the officers of Borstal institutions should be liable for negligence.
253:...the well-known passage in Lord Atkin's speech should I think be regarded as a statement of principle. It is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. But I think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.
39:
174:. 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
283:
may be regarded as a milestone, and the well-known passage in Lord Atkin’s piece should I think be regarded as a statement of principle … it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion. For example, causing economic loss is a different
277:‘there has been a steady trend toward regarding the law of negligence as depending on principle so that when a new point emerges one should ask not whether it is covered by authority but whether recognised principles apply to it.
202:
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.
193:
if an action would lie against any of the officers. 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
223:
What then is the right policy for the judges to adopt? On whom should the risk of negligence fall? Up till now it has fallen on the innocent victim. Many, many a time has a prisoner escaped - or been let out on
101:
146:. 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
97:
395:
246:
185:
A preliminary issue was ordered to be tried on whether the officers or the Home Office owed a duty of care to the claimants (plaintiffs, before the
131:
49:
347:
368:
342:
405:
400:
109:
273:
but also for its expression of a thoroughly incrementalist approach to the development of the duty of care. Lord Reid held:
390:
216:
352:
105:
143:
410:
266:
415:
93:
186:
189:
of 1999) capable of giving rise to liability in damages. It was admitted that the Home Office would be
279:
270:
147:
190:
219:
held that the Home Office should be liable for the damage on grounds of public policy. He stated,
198:
to the House of Lords. The Home Office argued that it could owe no duty of care as there was no
364:
338:
294:
127:
163:
17:
265:
The case is perhaps relevant not only for its clear elucidation of the 1930s-established
139:
384:
167:
123:
171:
175:
135:
353:
Administrative
Redress: Public bodies and the Citizen - A Consultation Paper
199:
138:
and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the
38:
179:
159:
225:
195:
142:
by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a
170:
under the control of three officers employed by the
89:
84:
76:
71:
63:
55:
45:
31:
271:neighbourhood (a proximity or sufficient nexus)
251:
221:
335:The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities
257:Viscount Dilhorne gave a dissenting judgment.
8:
37:
28:
249:held 4–1 likewise. Lord Reid held,
305:
7:
237:, Q.B (CA 1969).
25:
234:Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office
119:Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
32:Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
126:, AC 1004 is a leading case in
396:1970 in United Kingdom case law
67:2 All ER 294, AC 1004, UKHL 2
1:
375:Third Party Liability in Tort
361:Tort Law:Text and Materials
432:
158:On 21 September 1962, ten
18:Home Office v Dorset Yacht
359:M Lunney and K Oliphant,
162:trainees were working on
36:
333:C Booth and D Squires,
406:Home Office litigation
286:
255:
230:
401:English tort case law
275:
187:Civil Procedure Rules
124:[1970] UKHL 2
391:House of Lords cases
280:Donoghue v Stevenson
363:(2nd edn OUP 2003)
377:(Hart 2006, 17–20)
191:vicariously liable
411:History of Dorset
115:
114:
102:Viscount Dilhorne
16:(Redirected from
423:
322:
319:
313:
310:
295:English tort law
236:
128:English tort law
85:Court membership
41:
29:
21:
431:
430:
426:
425:
424:
422:
421:
420:
381:
380:
330:
325:
320:
316:
311:
307:
303:
291:
263:
243:
232:
217:Lord Denning MR
214:
212:Court of Appeal
209:
164:Brownsea Island
156:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
429:
427:
419:
418:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
383:
382:
379:
378:
371:
357:
348:Law Commission
345:
329:
326:
324:
323:
314:
304:
302:
299:
298:
297:
290:
287:
262:
259:
242:
241:House of Lords
239:
213:
210:
208:
205:
155:
152:
140:United Kingdom
132:House of Lords
113:
112:
91:
90:Judges sitting
87:
86:
82:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
50:House of Lords
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
428:
417:
416:Poole Harbour
414:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
388:
386:
376:
372:
370:
369:0-19-926055-9
366:
362:
358:
356:(2008) LC/187
355:
354:
349:
346:
344:
343:0-19-926541-0
340:
336:
332:
331:
327:
318:
315:
309:
306:
300:
296:
293:
292:
288:
285:
282:
281:
274:
272:
268:
260:
258:
254:
250:
248:
247:highest court
240:
238:
235:
229:
227:
220:
218:
211:
206:
204:
201:
197:
192:
188:
183:
181:
177:
173:
169:
168:Poole Harbour
165:
161:
153:
151:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
374:
360:
351:
334:
317:
308:
278:
276:
264:
261:Significance
256:
252:
244:
233:
231:
222:
215:
184:
157:
144:duty of care
134:decision on
118:
117:
116:
110:Lord Diplock
106:Lord Pearson
77:Prior action
72:Case history
26:
337:(OUP 2006)
172:Home Office
98:Lord Morris
385:Categories
373:C McIvor,
328:References
269:notion of
176:negligence
136:negligence
130:. It is a
59:6 May 1970
200:precedent
148:omissions
94:Lord Reid
312:2 QB 426
289:See also
267:Atkinian
207:Judgment
196:appealed
80:2 QB 426
64:Citation
321:AC 1004
284:matter’
180:damages
160:borstal
56:Decided
367:
341:
226:parole
301:Notes
154:Facts
122:
46:Court
365:ISBN
339:ISBN
245:The
178:for
166:in
387::
350:,
182:.
150:.
108:,
104:,
100:,
96:,
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
