• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Liability In Negligence Problem case. Advise Greenwichshire Police whether they owe a duty of care in negligence to: a) Those injured at the rally b)PC Nick

Extracts from this document...


Liability In Negligence Advise Greenwichshire Police whether they owe a duty of care in negligence to: a) Those injured at the rally Winfield defines negligence as "the breach of the legal duty to take care which results in damage, on desired by the defendant to the plaintiff"1 therefore it is necessary to prove an existing duty of care, breach of that duty and causation of damage in order to find successful action in negligence. Negligence began to develop in the early 19th century when liability of careless acts was founded upon a "duty to take care". On a case by case basis duty was found to exist owing to the relationship between the parties. Attempts such as that in Haven V Pender [1883] to set out a more general concept of duty had failed until Donoghue V Stevenson [19322]. In the case of Donoghue V Stevenson [1932]3, Lord Atkin developed his famous "Neighbour principle". He stated " You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure you neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons closely directly affected by my act"4. In determining whether the Greenwichshire Police owe a duty of care to those injured at the rally, we must first find whether there is an existing duty of care. ...read more.


Given that the investigation and suppression of crime must be seen as the primary functions of the police force, and the one that could directly affect a great number of people, it seems strange to us how highly unlikely it is that liability could ever arise in relation to negligent acts or omissions in this area. The police are only held to owe a general duty to the society, or the "public at large", and so in a relation to this particular activity, a private law duty is not owed to individuals; seemingly no matter how closely connected that individual is the police's negligence (proximity) and how likely it is that the particular individual may be affected by it (foreseeability). b) P.C Nick It was earlier mentioned that there was an existing duty between those at the rally and the police, however now one must establish whether Greenwichshire police owe a duty to its officer P.C Nick. As a member of the police force, Greenwichshire police to owe a duty of care to their officers as any employer would. The facts demonstrate that P.C Nick suffered from psychiatric injury ('nightmares' and 'depression') from the events that took place at the rally. In order to satisfy for psychiatric injury, there must be proximate relationship between the incident and the plaintiff. ...read more.


In Alcock however it was held that viewing a body nine hours after the incident would not qualify as 'immediate aftermath'. How far the aftermath will extend is uncertain and so is left for the courts to decide. However, considering that 5 hours is fairly far from what is defined as 'immediate', it may be possible that a duty of care would not be owed to Dave. Dave does not have a geographical proximity to the events and considering that 5 hours is a long time and far from what be called 'immediate' it may be possible that a duty of care does not exist. Having a close relationship with the primary victim is not enough to suffice for an existing duty. Thus it may be concluded that Greenwichshire Police do not owe a duty of care to Dave. In conclusion, there are a number of policy reasons as to why negligence against the police may be limited. The police's general sense of public duty would not be reinforced by negligence liability, as this would lead to defensive policing. Additionally defending negligent actions would be demanding money, time and man power, thus diverting the police from their main function. It is mainly due to these reasons that the House of Lords rejected the claims in Alcock. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Nuisance Problem Answer.

    to the nuisance or that he used all the possible care and skill or made reasonable use of their property.

  2. Duty of Care.

    A taxi driver need not take any more responsibility for his passengers just because he was inebriated. Omissions Generally, passive omissions will not give rise to negligent conduct. P. Pearl (Exporters) v Camden London Borough Council [1984] It was held that the defendants who had failed to secure their flat

  1. Tort Problem Question Answer

    If the 'but for' test was applied in this case, can we conclude that, but for the Defendant 2's careless act, the Claimant would not have suffered any harm? I believe so. So it could be said that, making a claim under negligence would allow the Claimant to receive compensation

  2. TORT: Advise all the parties as to their potential claims in the tort ...

    It was stated in Hedley Bryne-v-Heller that advice given at social occasions should not attract liability but it is arguable that Tony was advising Henry in a business context as he was advising him as a potential future client. Henry must also prove that he placed reliance on the advice

  1. Consider the relationship between the torts of private nuisance and negligence and in doing ...

    The important note here is that the claim based on negligence failed and so did the nuisance claim since negligence could not be found, thus demonstrating that some nuisance cases require some fault. This particular issue is examined in the case of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather

  2. Tort Law - Negligence

    They are not required to provide absolute safety for every person in every possible accident that could occur. (Elliot, 2003) Furthermore, Bolton v Stone (1951), in which was held that there was no breach of the duty, can be applied if W can demonstrate that they took all the necessary reasonable precautions to avoid the accident.

  1. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    Dumbreck Collieries [1929] AC 358, were it was said a trespasser was not intentionally or recklessly injured. The British Railways Board v. Herrington [1972] AC 877 changed the situation, where the court had to take in to account of the resources of the occupiers.

  2. Tort - Nervous Shock

    It would be then that sally's link to Hugh would be clearer. For now it remains that the narrowly drawn list of the common law presumptions in Alcock are still to be used. Can Sally be considered as the spouse of Hugh? Hugh after all is not Sally's biological father.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work