Tort 11 - Breach of duty of care 3
In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) a group of boys
from a borstal school, a type of detention center for young delinquents, were
doing some supervised work on an island. The boys were subsequently left
unsupervised and 7 of them attempted to escape on board a stolen boat that
later collided with the plaintiff’s yacht and the plaintiff sued for the damage
to his yacht caused by the collision. The plaintiff was successful.
It was held that the officers or the home office that the
officers were answerable to were liable for the damage because it was
foreseeable, given their track record, that the boys would try and escape, and
in doing so, try and commandeer a vehicle to help them escape. The officers
should have exercised due care and diligence in carrying out their duties and
their failure to do so or their omission had resulted in damage being caused to
the plaintiff’s yacht.
In Nettleship v Weston (1971) the defendant was a learner
driver who’d employed the plaintiff to help her fine-tune her driving skills.
While they were on the road the defendant turned a bend and the plaintiff told
the defendant to straighten the wheel. The defendant failed to do so and in
order to avoid an accident the plaintiff pulled on the handbrake but despite
that the car ran over a pavement and hit a lamppost and the plaintiff was
injured in the accident that followed.
The plaintiff sued. The defendant pleaded volenti non fit
injuria and argued that by entering into the car the plaintiff had voluntarily
accepted the risk. The court rejected this argument and the plaintiff was
successful.
The court held that despite the fact that the defendant was
a learner driver the duty that was imposed on her was the same duty that was
imposed on any other driver.
In Roberts v Ramsbottom (1980) the plaintiff was a
pedestrian who was injured by the defendant while he was driving. The defendant
had suffered a stroke and during the episode he had lost partial control of his
car. The court in line with the decision in Nettleship v Weston (1971) held
that the duty that was owed was the same duty that was owed by any other driver
i.e. that of an ordinary competent driver.
While the defendant in Roberts v Ramsbottom (1980) didn’t
know, or couldn’t possibly have known that he was about to suffer from a stroke
there are other medical conditions that should make a person think twice before
getting behind the wheel of a car. The most common would be diabetes.
Diabetes is a condition where the immune system destroys the
cells in the pancreas that makes insulin and anyone who suffers from diabetes
can be subjected to not only the effects of excess sugar in the body but also
be subjected to the effects of a lack of sugar in the body, as a result of the medication
that is taken, and both these conditions make it unsafe for anyone who suffers
from the condition to drive.
Likewise, epileptic sufferers because they don’t know what
would trigger a seizure or when it would occur, should not get behind the wheel
of a car because they can not only pose a danger to themselves but to others as
well.
The court reaffirmed the decisions in Nettleship v Weston
(1971) and Roberts v Ramsbottom (1980) in Marshall v Osmond (1983) where a
police officer crashed into an escaping criminal. The duty that was owed was
one of the ordinary and competent driver and the police officer was held to be
not liable.
In Thompson and Others v Smiths Shiprepairers (North
Shields) (1984) the plaintiffs were hired as laborers in a shipyard. After
close to 40 years of working and being continuously exposed to the noise in the
shipyard they found that their hearing had become impaired. The plaintiffs
sued.
The defendants argued that at the time the plaintiffs
started their employment hearing impairment due to exposure to noise was not a
recognized risk and that most employers failed to see it as a risk and that the
defendants had merely acted in the manner that is common in the industry.
The court held that with regards to situations where an
employer did not owe a duty to provide an employee with the relevant safety
equipment (because the industry standards at that time did not require an
employer to do so) but was later required to do so because of new developments
or changes in the law, the employer was liable from the time the requirement
came into effect.
With reference to hearing impairment caused by being continuously
exposed to noise, what about the ground crews in the air force? Would they be
able to claim for being exposed to continuous noise, which without doubt would
cause them some sort of hearing impairment, if they were not provided with the
suitable protective equipment or are there policy considerations that should or
would negate their claim?
Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward and Kathiresan
Ramachanderam
Comments
Post a Comment