Nobody downloaded yet

Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public bodies - Essay Example

Comments (0) Cite this document
Critically assess the rule in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 453 and consider both the justifications the courts have offered for maintaining the rule; and how the rule compares to other principles limiting actions in negligence against public bodies…
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER93.6% of users find it useful
Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public bodies
Read TextPreview

Extract of sample "Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public bodies"

Download file to see previous pages This essay also analyses how the exclusionary rule compares to other principles used by the court to limit claims in negligence against public bodies. The Rule in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire In Hill, the plaintiff’s son was the last victim of a serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper. The plaintiff claimed that had it not been for police negligence in detecting and apprehending the Yorkshire killer, her daughter would not have been murdered by him. The court ruled that the police do not owe the public a general duty of care in terms of apprehending criminals that are not known, unless failure to exercise care results in more risks. Moreover, police do not owe a general duty of care to individuals except in circumstances where there is proximity of relationship between the police and an identified victim.3 Lord Keith acknowledged that there may be a number of circumstances in which there may be a duty of care to the general public in the conduct of a number of activities that may require a higher standard of care. However, it is unreasonable to expect this kind of general duty to be applied to the activities that police conduct. Lord Keith went on to state: The general sense of public duty which motivates police forces is unlikely to be appreciably reinforced by the imposition of such liability so far as concerns their function in the investigation and suppression of crime. From time to time they make mistakes in the exercise of that function, but it is not to be doubted that they apply their best endeavours to the performance of it.4 It would therefore appear that in formulating and justifying the exclusionary rule, there is an assumption that in the investigation and suppression of crimes, police put forth their best efforts and any missteps are regarded as excusable errors. Such an assumption is unrealistic, but at the same time, police are accountable for intentional torts in terms of assault and battery. In such instances, proximity is clearly established. The court was very careful to emphasize that the exclusionary rule would apply only in some instances.5 Lord Keith clearly stated that it would be unreasonable to impose a duty of care I “some instances” as this “may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind”.6 The court explained that the specific instances where it would be unreasonable to impose liability on police would be instances in which police were conducting investigations and suppressing crimes. Lord Keith specifically stated that the likelihood of the police conducting their duties with a “defensive frame of mind” when conducting investigations “cannot be excluded”.7 Thus liability could not be imposed when police were conducting investigations and this part of the ruling was prefaced by the presumption that police conduct their investigations putting forth their best efforts. The justification for the exclusionary rule may therefore be counterproductive. In safeguarding against the risk that police may become too distracted by the prospects of being found liable for negligence in the performance of ...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
(“Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from
(Tort Law - Principles Limiting Actions in Negligence Against Public Essay)
“Tort Law - Principles Limiting Actions in Negligence Against Public Essay”, n.d.
  • Cited: 0 times
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment or rate a document

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public bodies

Tort of Negligence

...departure from the standards set by the Bolam Test, but rather redefined those standards. As per the Bolitho Case, in case the existence of varied bodies of expert opinions in a case of negligence against a professional person, the judge was to choose an expert opinion that was logically valid and defensible. The Bolitho Case rebalanced the requirements of justice by making the law have a predominant say in the decision making in cases of professional negligence, rather that the bodies of professional opinion makers. The Tort of Professional Negligence is as much applicable to Medical Practitioners as to...
11 Pages(2750 words)Essay

Negligence and tort law

... because, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson a common law duty of care could not be imposed on a statutory duty where the observance of those two duties conflicted or the common law duty discouraged observance of the statutory one. Thus injury caused by performance of a statutory duty was not actionable, (Tufal 2001, P.2). In Rondel vs. Worsley (1969), the House of Lords held that a barrister owed no duty of care to his client underlying public policy reasons that were against re-opening of the original case in subsequent hearings. Breach of Duty The breach of duty test is a reasonable one: was the defendant expected to meet the standards of a reasonable person. A breach can only occur once a duty is established. Negligence occurs where... ...
7 Pages(1750 words)Essay

Foreseeability. Negligence and Tort

..., it was established that a person is responsible for the foreseeable consequences only. Conclusion From the discussion, it is evidently clear that tort of negligence greatly entails wrongdoings of others in varying circumstances. As such, liability of negligence must be established with the view of seeking awards for damages. As observed, even though foreseeability has been relied upon significantly in determining liability in negligence for harm caused by the deliberate wrongdoing of others, it is clear that it is not the only basis that such liability can be determined. Since there is no such general principle, several circumstances in which liability...
12 Pages(3000 words)Assignment

Tort actions

...?Week 3 Scenario The tort actions I see in this scenario are the tort of battery (an intentional tort), intentional infliction of emotional distress and the tort of negligence. The potential plaintiffs are Malik and Daniel, who are also the potential defendants in this scenario. I mention that both parties are defendants because there was negligence on behalf of Malik and intentional harm on behalf of Daniel. The elements that I found for each of the plaintiffs claims are as follows: If Malik had not accidentially spilled the beer on Ruben (Daniels son), Daniel would not have got fired from his job, being accused of...
2 Pages(500 words)Essay

Tort of negligence

...?Question Presented What is the role of the chain of causation in the tort of negligence? A tort is a civil, as opposed to criminal, wrong that isrecognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit and is redressed by an award of damages. Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (1993). The wrong must result in some sort of injury that is compensable by monetary damages. Some of these include: loss of earnings capacity, pain and suffering, and reasonable medical expenses. (Cornell University School of Law, Legal Information Institute). Torts fall into one of three categories, intentional, negligent and strict liability. (Id.)....
3 Pages(750 words)Assignment

Law - Tort of Negligence

...? Tort of negligence of Institute Introduction Though Castle Cricket Club has remedy in contract as there was no consideration given it can still sue Brunel under the tort of negligence. The tort of negligence is a tort that awards damages for a breach of duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff resulting in damage to the plaintiff undesired by the defendant (Keenan, 2007. P. 265). The tort of negligence was created in the House of Lords in 1932. Before then, the courts studied the circumstances of the case and so if there was precedent and decided, based on all these, if the plaintiff...
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay

Psychiatrict-negligence in Tort Law

... deals with paying damages to victims of an accident, resulting from other parties’ carelessness. If a duty of care is indistinct in the given case, then the tort of negligence is not necessary from that point when analyzing that situation. In this study, determining who owes the other a duty of care as the fire incident occurred is immensely dependent on Lord Atkins’s neighbor principle that prescribes a framework for analyzing the validity of duty of care. Negligent liability of psychological harm thus depends on a test called the neighbor principle.3 The foremost action by the court when determining liability for payment of damages a conduction of the neighbour test. The court further enquires whether there existed core policy... ?...
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay

Tort of Negligence

... Tort of Negligence In order to establish whether clumsy can claim negligence against you, we will examine the case and will try to see if the tort of negligence applies in this case. We will also examine whether there is any defence available. Tort of Negligence means carelessly causing damage or injury to the other person. You may not have wanted to cause the injury but it happens as a result of certain task performed by you or the non-performance of a task that you needed to perform. There are basically three requirements which need to be fulfilled in order to prove that the defendant was negligent and the injury to the plaintiff was caused as a result of this negligence. Duty of Care – This is the first thing which needs... to be...
5 Pages(1250 words)Assignment

Tort - Negligence Assessment the conditions falling within the ambit of tort of negligence, the criteria which indicate that a duty of care may arise in any given situation are: the foreseeability of the damage, proximity between the party owing duty of care and the party to whom duty of care is owed, and a situation that is reasonable and just enough for the court of law to impose a duty of a specific scope on the responsible party, for the party to which duty of care is owed. Question 8 It is most likely that Lord Bridge would use these criteria as a general “test” to establish a duty of care in every situation. The reason for this is twofold. One, he sees previous cases such as Anns v Merton London Borough...
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay

Tort of Negligence

...Tort of Negligence Table of Contents With Reference To Taha And Relevant Case Law, Identify The Criteria That Need To Be Satisfied For A Successful Claim In The Tort Of Negligence. 3 2. How Might The Courts Establish Whether Mike Can Claim For Economic Loss Against Pitcher And Co. 4 3. Both Cases Are Referred To The Court Of Appeal. With Reference To The Court Structure Of The English Legal System, Explain Which Courts The Court Of Appeal Would Be Binding Upon. 5 4. In Deciding The Cases Before Them, Discuss Whether The Judge Can Depart From Previous Decisions Made In The Court Of Appeal. 7 References 9 1. With Reference To Taha And...
4 Pages(1000 words)Coursework
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Let us find you another Essay on topic Tort Law - Principles limiting actions in negligence against public bodies for FREE!

Contact Us