HOME OFFICE v. DORSET YACHT COMPANY LTD.

Link: => sumberesmi.nnmcloud.ru/d?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzY6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZG93bmxvYWRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MjY6IkhvbWUgb2ZmaWNlIHYgZG9yc2V0IHlhY2h0Ijt9


Held: the bank did not owe such a duty of care. Template:Cquote Viscount Dilhorne gave a dissenting judgment. He claimed damages for negligence.

The owners of the yacht sued the Home Office in negligence for damages. In defining the elements basic to all these cases where the breach of duty of care gives rise to liability, Lord Atkins could not have intended that his words mean that in every case. 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.

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] AC 1004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Home Office v. Full case name The Home Office v. It is a decision on and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a. 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 omissions. Seven trainees escaped one night, at the home office v dorset yacht 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 for. A preliminary issue was ordered to be tried on whether the officers or the Home Office owed a duty of care to the claimants capable of giving rise to liability in damages. It was admitted that the Home Office would be if an action would lie against any of the officers. The preliminary hearing found for the Dorset Yacht Co. The Home Office to the House of Lords. The Home Office argued that it could owe no duty of care as there was no 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. Opinion of the Court Neighbour principle: Historically, in English law, a duty of care was found in particular circumstances established by precedent. The courts had been reluctant to find new duties of care until the landmark judgment in in 1932 where had stated his neighbour principle for finding a duty of care in broad circumstances. However, the principle had had little impact other than in the case of. In the Dorset Yacht case Lord Reid held:. 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 explan- ation for its exclusion. Lord Reid then applied the principle with particular emphasis on foreseeability:. Third parties Omissions Justiciability Legal Significance The case is perhaps relevant not only for its clear elucidation of the notion of Neighbourhood but also for its expression of a thoroughly incrementalist approach to the development of the duty of care. The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities. Tort Law:Text and Materials 2nd ed ed. Third Party Liability in Tort.

The Home Office appealed against the decision and argued that it could not have been liable for the actions of a third party, and that for policy reasons opening the floodgates of cases , it should not be held liable. Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use reasonable care to prevent a borstal trainee from escaping from his custody, was owed only to persons whom he could reasonably foresee had property situated in the vicinity of the place of detention of the detainee, and which the detainee was likely to steal or to appropriate and damage in the course of eluding immediate pursuit and capture. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also. The seven trainees who escaped boarded a yacht and collided with another yacht, the property of the respondents, and damaged it. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our , and if you can't find the answer there, please. Third Party Liability in Tort. They also boarded the second yacht and caused further damage. The main issue was if the Home Office was liable for an action that a third party had committed; in other words whether the Home Office owed a duty of care to the claimant. The officers went to sleep and left them to their work. The claimants appealed against the decision. They claimed also under the 1998 Act.