Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018]
Share
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 is a landmark case in English tort law that addresses the duty of care owed by the police to members of the public. The case involves an elderly woman who was injured during the arrest of a suspect by two police officers. The central question was whether the police owed a duty of care to the injured woman.
In July 2008, a 76-year-old woman was injured by two police officers attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer. The officers, focused on the suspect, did not notice the woman in their vicinity. The woman claimed the police owed her a duty of care and breached that duty.
The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, allowed the appeal, holding that the police did owe a duty of care. Lord Reed emphasised the rejection of a single test for duty of care, the applicability of general tort principles to the police, and the absence of a general rule immunising the police from duty when discharging their duties.
The case concerned a positive act by the police who created a dangerous situation while attempting to arrest the suspected drug dealer. The court rejected the argument that the police were not under a duty of care for omissions or a failure to prevent harm caused by third parties.
The case challenged the traditional three-part test for determining a duty of care established in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990]. The Supreme Court rejected a single test and emphasised an approach based on common law, precedent, and the incremental development of the law.
The Court clarified that there is no general rule that the police are immune from a duty of care when performing their operational duties. The police generally owe a duty of care under ordinary principles of negligence, unless statute or common law provides otherwise. The Court reinterpreted Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, stating that the general law of tort applies to the police, and they can be liable for negligence where such liability would arise under ordinary tortious principles.
It should be noted that this case was different from the Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015], which held that the police did not owe a duty of care to the victim because the police had not created the danger, nor had they assumed responsibility for the claimant. By contrast, the police in the Robinson case created a dangerous situation when attempting to arrest the suspected drug dealer, so they should owe a duty of care to the claimant.
The Robinson case is deemed a highly significant case in 2018, as it brought about a notable shift in the approach to determining police liability towards members of the public. The decision clarified the general test for establishing a duty of care, departing from the earlier Caparo framework. This reevaluation of the law has far-reaching implications for cases involving police conduct and the broader understanding of duty of care in novel situations.
In July 2008, a 76-year-old woman was injured by two police officers attempting to arrest a suspected drug dealer. The officers, focused on the suspect, did not notice the woman in their vicinity. The woman claimed the police owed her a duty of care and breached that duty.
The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, allowed the appeal, holding that the police did owe a duty of care. Lord Reed emphasised the rejection of a single test for duty of care, the applicability of general tort principles to the police, and the absence of a general rule immunising the police from duty when discharging their duties.
The case concerned a positive act by the police who created a dangerous situation while attempting to arrest the suspected drug dealer. The court rejected the argument that the police were not under a duty of care for omissions or a failure to prevent harm caused by third parties.
The case challenged the traditional three-part test for determining a duty of care established in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990]. The Supreme Court rejected a single test and emphasised an approach based on common law, precedent, and the incremental development of the law.
The Court clarified that there is no general rule that the police are immune from a duty of care when performing their operational duties. The police generally owe a duty of care under ordinary principles of negligence, unless statute or common law provides otherwise. The Court reinterpreted Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, stating that the general law of tort applies to the police, and they can be liable for negligence where such liability would arise under ordinary tortious principles.
It should be noted that this case was different from the Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015], which held that the police did not owe a duty of care to the victim because the police had not created the danger, nor had they assumed responsibility for the claimant. By contrast, the police in the Robinson case created a dangerous situation when attempting to arrest the suspected drug dealer, so they should owe a duty of care to the claimant.
The Robinson case is deemed a highly significant case in 2018, as it brought about a notable shift in the approach to determining police liability towards members of the public. The decision clarified the general test for establishing a duty of care, departing from the earlier Caparo framework. This reevaluation of the law has far-reaching implications for cases involving police conduct and the broader understanding of duty of care in novel situations.
