Tort XX - Causation VI
The
decision in Kirkham v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police (1990)
must be compared with the decision in Knight v Home Office (1990). The case
concerns a 21-year-old boy who had suicidal tendencies and was imprisoned. The
prison authorities were aware of his condition and the authorities kept a
constant watch on the boy at regular intervals. Despite the precautions that
were taken the boy committed suicide and his parents sued.
It
was held that the prison authorities had taken relevant care by ensuring that
the boy was kept under frequent watch. A prison however was not a hospital for
the psychiatrically ill and the plaintiff could not expect the same level of
care as one would expect from a hospital. The prison authorities were only
required to exercise the level of care that was required for a prison and the
prison authorities in this instance were deemed to have done just that. The
plaintiff was unsuccessful.
In
Hale v London Underground Ltd (1993), the case concerns a firefighter who had
gone over and above his duty by repeatedly returning to the scene of the King’s
Cross fire. The plaintiff was awarded a medal for bravery and though he did not
suffer any physical injury from being continuously exposed to the fire and its
aftermath he did suffer from post-traumatic stress. The plaintiff brought an
action to recover for psychiatric illness caused by the defendants’ negligence
and was successful. He was awarded damages in lieu of his illness.
In
Alexandrou v Oxford (1993) we once again examine the scope of duty that is owed
by a member of the police force to the public. The defendant let a burglar
escape after the alarm in a retail store went off. The plaintiff, the owner of
the shop brought an action against the police for letting the burglar escape.
The court in line with all the previous cases we have looked at with regards to
the duty owed by the police held that the defendant was not liable. The
decision of the courts is largely based on public policy and though there may
be occasions where mistakes are made, those mistakes are small when compared to
the success rate.
In
Osman v Ferguson (1993) a teacher developed an unhealthy fascination for a
14-year-old boy and started following him around. It later turned out to be
something more sinister than mere infatuation and the teacher was sacked but he
continued to persist and began to harass the boy and his family and at one
stage even threatened to kill the boy and anyone else who came in his way - he
even admitted that he couldn’t stop himself. The matter was reported to the
police but no action was taken and finally the teacher shot the boy and his
father. The boy survived but his father didn’t. The plaintiff, the boy’s mother
brought an action against the police.
The
court in line with Hill v Chief Constable for West Yorkshire (1988) held that
the police did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. While it was foreseeable
that some harm might occur as a result of the teacher’s improper actions, for
reasons of public policy, a duty could not be imposed on the police. It is
difficult to ask of the police to keep the boy under 24-hour surveillance
because the police lacked the resources.
Would
the boy’s family, given the seriousness of the threat have been able to use the
services of a private agency? The answer in short, as long as the courts allow
it, is yes, but these services are not cheap and therefore it is a matter of if
the family can afford it.
A
similar rule applies to missing children. As long as the law permits it, the
parents are allowed to use any means at their disposal to recover their child.
When it comes to private agencies, it is a matter of costs and it depends on
how much the parents can afford to pay.
In
Smith v Cribben (1994) the plaintiff tried to overtake the defendant on the
motorway and the defendant continued driving at the speed he was driving at.
The plaintiff was unsuccessful in overtaking the defendant but continued to
persist and as a result crashed into a tree. The plaintiff sued.
The
court held that the defendant was not under a duty to give way to the plaintiff
and was entitled to continue driving at the speed he was driving at as long as
it was within the limits imposed by the law. The plaintiff was unsuccessful.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment