Category: mental health

Selwood v Durham County Council and others [2012] EWCA Civ 979; [2012] WLR (D) 231

“When determining whether a defendant owed a common law duty of care to a claimant in respect of the actions of a third party on the basis of foreseeability, proximity and fairness, justice and reasonableness, in accordance with the test laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, there was no need to show that the defendant had assumed any responsibility for the claimant’s safety. In determining whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose that duty of care on a defendant who was a public authority, additional factors of public policy had to be considered and some classes of claimant would stand in such a special relationship with the defendant public authority that it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in respect of the actions of a third party. In respect of that limited class of claimants, the weight to be attached to some of the policy considerations which rendered a duty to a wider class undesirable was much less than if the duty was one owed to the world at large. In order to establish the existence of a duty of care on the basis of an assumption of responsibility, there was no requirement for something positive to that effect to have been said or something done which clearly indicated such assumption, and the assumption of responsibility could be inferred from circumstances.”

WLR Daily, 18th July 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk