This chapter considers the liability in negligence of public authorities such as government departments and schools. It commences by examining typical features of public authorities, including their statutory and public dimensions. It then considers the tests that courts have used to determine whether they can claim jurisdiction to hear cases involving public authorities—ie, the issue of justiciability. If the court can exercise jurisdiction, then the next issue that arises is the application of the Caparo Industries v Dickman three-stage framework for duty which, in cases of public authorities, requires paying special attention to policy reasons for either recognising or excluding duties of care.
Chapter
5. Duty of care IV: public authorities
Chapter
8. Liability of Public and Statutory Bodies
This chapter discusses the distinctive nature of the liability of the government, public authorities, and statutory bodies; the liability of statutory bodies in negligence; liability for breach of statutory duty; public law as a source of liability; public law as a source of immunity; Crown proceedings in tort; liability for breaches of EU law; and liabilities arising under the Human Rights Act 1998. The chapter explores in detail the question of whether public authorities, and the police in particular, are under a duty of care when undertaking and performing their operational duties, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. In turn, it teases out some of the broader implications of what is a rapidly evolving, and politically sensitive, aspect of the law.
Chapter
5. Duty of Care: Applications
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter deals with particular applications of the duty of care concept that determine the boundaries of the tort. Various cases on duty of care are examined in terms of recognized categories relating to negligently inflicted psychiatric damage, ‘pure economic loss’, and negligence liability of public authorities. The chapter also considers the assumption of responsibility criterion developed from the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465, as well as applications of the ‘Caparo approach’ used in establishing whether a duty is owed. Finally, it looks at emerging organizing concepts which appear to span different categories of case law.
Chapter
2. Negligence I: Duty of Care
Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses negligence in terms of duty of care. In order to answer questions on this topic, students need to have the following: a general understanding of the tort of negligence; an understanding of the development of duty of care in negligence, in particular the key cases of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728; Caparo plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605; an understanding of the development of duty of care in specialized aspects of negligence; and understanding of liability for omissions and of public authorities.
