Dunnage v Randall UK Insurance [2015]
Share
Dunnage v Randall UK Insurance Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 673 is an English tort law case concerning the role of mental impairments in determining the standard of care.
Vince poured petrol over himself, and his nephew, the claimant, unsuccessfully tried to prevent him from igniting it. Both individuals were engulfed in flames. Vince died, while the claimant jumped to safety but suffered serious burns. Post-mortem, Vince was diagnosed with florid paranoid schizophrenia, with delusional beliefs that had dispossessed him of his own mind. A negligence claim was brought against Vince's estate and insurer for damages. The insurance policy excluded cover for any acts by him that were wilful or malicious. The main issue was whether the standard required by Vince's duty of care was objective or whether his personal characteristics, specifically his mental illness, could be taken into account.
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there should be no distinction between physical and mental illness in determining the standard of care. For adults, the standard is determined by the objective standards of a reasonable person. Personal characteristics of the defendant, including mental illness, should not alter this standard. Unless a defendant can establish that his condition entirely eliminated responsibility, he remains vulnerable to liability if he does not meet the objective standard of care.
In this case, Vince failed to exercise reasonable care, but the injury was accidental because he had clearly lost control of his ability to make choices.
The court emphasised that the objective standard of care reflects the policy of the law, which aims to ensure that everyone owes the same duty of care for the protection of innocent victims. The decision acknowledged that there might be hard cases, such as this one, where a person with reduced abilities does not know how to avoid injury to others. However, their liability is treated as the price for being able to move freely within society despite their condition.
The decision highlights the contrasting approaches of criminal and civil law to the concept of human responsibility, particularly when mental illness is involved. The law of negligence judges individuals objectively, regardless of their mental state, in contrast to considerations of insanity in criminal law. The judgement reflects on the implications of holding severely disabled individuals to an objective standard that might be impossible for them to achieve, raising questions about legal certainty and fairness.
Vince poured petrol over himself, and his nephew, the claimant, unsuccessfully tried to prevent him from igniting it. Both individuals were engulfed in flames. Vince died, while the claimant jumped to safety but suffered serious burns. Post-mortem, Vince was diagnosed with florid paranoid schizophrenia, with delusional beliefs that had dispossessed him of his own mind. A negligence claim was brought against Vince's estate and insurer for damages. The insurance policy excluded cover for any acts by him that were wilful or malicious. The main issue was whether the standard required by Vince's duty of care was objective or whether his personal characteristics, specifically his mental illness, could be taken into account.
The Court of Appeal unanimously held that there should be no distinction between physical and mental illness in determining the standard of care. For adults, the standard is determined by the objective standards of a reasonable person. Personal characteristics of the defendant, including mental illness, should not alter this standard. Unless a defendant can establish that his condition entirely eliminated responsibility, he remains vulnerable to liability if he does not meet the objective standard of care.
In this case, Vince failed to exercise reasonable care, but the injury was accidental because he had clearly lost control of his ability to make choices.
The court emphasised that the objective standard of care reflects the policy of the law, which aims to ensure that everyone owes the same duty of care for the protection of innocent victims. The decision acknowledged that there might be hard cases, such as this one, where a person with reduced abilities does not know how to avoid injury to others. However, their liability is treated as the price for being able to move freely within society despite their condition.
The decision highlights the contrasting approaches of criminal and civil law to the concept of human responsibility, particularly when mental illness is involved. The law of negligence judges individuals objectively, regardless of their mental state, in contrast to considerations of insanity in criminal law. The judgement reflects on the implications of holding severely disabled individuals to an objective standard that might be impossible for them to achieve, raising questions about legal certainty and fairness.
