Mitchell v Glasgow City Council Case - Essay Example

Duty of care can be said to be, the provision of care by the law on various circumstances or on any relationship that leads to the legal duty, to take care of the subject in question (ELLIOT, 2011, p. 566). Failure to give care may lead to payment of any damages incurred by the defendant to the suffering party. All the same some circumstances do not enjoy the duty of care for instance injuries or harm caused by a third party hence; it becomes extremely hard to exercise justice on such cases. Mitchell v Glasgow City Council is a typical example of the same. Unfortunate facts are common with most of the leading cases, especially based on the delict law. This is particularly true as seen in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council case. James Mitchell is a tenant under the housing local authority has a neighbor by the name Drummond James. Drummond becomes an antisocial neighbor, who ends up a total threat to Mr. Mitchell James. In December 1994, a conflict arose between Mitchell and Drummond due to issues of noise. At this point, Drummond went ahead to bang Mr., Mitchells door using an iron bar and also had the windows of the house smashed. This was the beginning of Mitchell’s horror with Drummond, who openly insulted him and at the same time issued threats to have him dead. James Mitchell suffered an attack from James Drummond. Mitchell suffered injuries that were severe enough to cause his death. The verbal abuses went on for a period of 6 ½ years. (ROBERT, 2009). He later killed him in 2001. It is at this point that the council of Glasgow took an initiative to have eviction proceeds against Drummond. Just before, the assault, Drummond got a summon from the council. It was then that he went back and committed the crime which took away Mitchells life. Mitchell’s daughter together with her mum, Mitchell’s wife filed a case against the Glasgow council for negligence that resulted to the loss of Mr. Mitchell. The law does not impose duty that is positive to have someone protect other people; and duty to have a person prevented from any form of harm emanating from any form of criminality on the basis of foreseeing its possibility. On the contrary, harm that is foreseen is in it is not weighty enough to have the duty of care imposition. Therefore, this acted in the disfavor of Mitchell’s family. Ratio refers to reasons given to arrive to a certain decision. They offer a binding precedent that is to say that the courts under in terms of the hierarchy structure, have to follow the same incase a similar case arises and the same presented to them. Obiter refers to other things said. It has similarities with obiter only that this one does not give a binding precedent. Based on the Mitchell v Glasgow case, it was evident that Mitchell suffered an injury caused by a third party, but it was not easy to have the housing authority liable to his injuries as that would be unfair to the authorities. They gave evidence of reported cases of abuse as well as threats from Drummond, but still that was not substantial enough to have the local authorities held responsible. Mitchell v Glasgow City council’s case became widely covered on media. The case emanated due to, the Councils failure to facilitate for duty of care. This led to loss of life. All the same there were no valid grounds to have the police liable for having an individual hurt by third part even despite the claims aired. Mitchell’s family brought claims against their local authorities since; they felt that their housing authority breached their agreement to facilitate for a proper duty of care to them. The court dismissed the first claim in 2005 whereby the Mitchell family sought an appeal to the appellate division. Mitchell’s family waited till 2008 when the Lords at the appellate division agreed to have a hearing of the case. This gave room for the parties to produce any evidence before the court gave any decision. (ELLIOT, 2011, p. 564). The claims made against the Glasgow council turned out null and void as well as, the cross appeal, made by the family of Mitchell suffered dismissal too. The judges were in agreement though had varied reasons that led to their common conclusion. According to the judges it was not fair to have a duty imposed upon the landlords, to have them warn their tenants concerning issues of antisocial behavior. A conclusion by the Lords that it was almost impossible for the housing authority to foresee any form of attack carried out by Drummond hence, could not term that as breach. To facilitate for justice for either party, that is the tenants and the landlords it then becomes necessary to draw clear rules to help tighten the safety of each person. When pursuing any case on antisocial behavior, it is necessary for landlords to practice due diligence as this will ensure no risks incurred to any of the relevant parties, and these includes the perpetrators, victims as well as the witnesses. Since it is almost impossible to impose liability to the landlord on any form of injury caused by a third party, it then becomes necessary to have clear ways on how to avoid such unfavorable circumstances. One of the best ways then would be to have the landlord control tenant’s behavior by imposing tenancy agreements, which may clearly, state acceptable behaviors and prohibit unacceptable behavior. Breach of the same would lead to eviction. With a written agreement, it becomes easy to seek a court order that would facilitate an eviction order by the court which mostly is a last resort by the housing authority. With the introduction of the proposals to reform, the landlords got the opportunity to obtain power of possession in case of any serious antisocial behaviors from their tenants. It therefore, gave an easy way of handling tenants without putting themselves in serious risk of constantly facing accusations by their tenants for not taking a keen interest of their safety. Consequences emanating from third party harm can only be well dealt with, if the housing agencies get proper empowerment to be able to settle such issues at their level to avoid harm to other parties. Mitchell v Glasgow City Council case is a typical case showing the importance of tightening the law to ensure innocent people suffer and the people who cause the crimes go unpunished, but with proper proposals of reform it will then be easy to handle such cases. References  ELLIOTT, M., BEATSON, J., & MATTHEWS, M. H. (2011). Beatson, Matthews, and Elliott's administrative law: text and materials. Oxford, Oxford University Press. ROBERT, S. (2009). Mitchell v Glasgow City Council. 1 AC 874. Read More