Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004; [1970] 2 WLR 1140; [1970] 2 All ER 294

KEY POINTS

• Negligence centers on the failure to exercise reasonable care, with an element being the duty of care owed to others. In the context of a Borstal institution, the duty extends to the welfare of residents. 

• Liability questions arise when absconders cause damage to a private yacht, involving scrutiny of the Home Office's fulfillment of its duty of care in managing the Borstal system.

  • Public policy considerations may influence arguments for or against immunity from legal action. 

• The discretionary powers in running a Borstal system necessitate a balance between decision-making flexibility and adherence to legal standards, shaping the assessment of the Home Office's role and potential liability.

FACTS

• In a case involving seven Borstal boys working on an island supervised by three officers, Dorset C Yacht Co. Ltd (“Plaintiffs”) filed an action for damages against the Home Office, claiming negligence.

  • The boys, with known criminal records and previous escapes from Borstal institutions, left the island at night, boarded, cast adrift, and damaged the Plaintiffs' yacht moored offshore.

  • The Plaintiffs argued that the officers failed to effectively control or supervise the boys despite knowledge of their history.

• The Home Office, in response, denied owing any duty of care to the Plaintiffs regarding the detention or treatment of the boys.

• The preliminary issue at trial focused on whether the Home Office had a duty of care based on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim.

  • Thesiger J. affirmed the existence of a duty of care in favor of the Plaintiffs.

• The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, dismissing an appeal by the Home Office.

• On a subsequent appeal by the Home Office, the contention included the scarcity of authority for imposing such a duty, the principle that a person cannot be liable for wrongs committed by another of full age and capacity not acting as their servant, and the argument that public policy or relevant legislation mandated immunity for officers.

JUDGEMENT

• The appeal was dismissed, with Viscount Dilhorne in dissent.

• It was held that the Borstal officers did owe the Plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care in all circumstances to prevent the boys under their control from causing damage to the Plaintiffs' property, especially if there was a manifest risk associated with neglecting that duty.

• The judgment further concluded that public policy did not mandate immunity from an action like the one brought by the Plaintiffs.

• The affirmative answer to the legal question was deemed correct.

COMMENTARY

• In a legal scenario involving negligence, duty of care, and liability, particularly within the context of a Borstal institution, the analysis emphasizes the importance of understanding the duty of care owed by the Home Office in managing the Borstal system, with a specific focus on a case where seven Borstal boys caused damage to a private yacht.

• This legal scenario involves negligence, duty of care, and liability within a Borstal institution context.

  • It focuses on a case where seven Borstal boys caused damage to a private yacht, leading to the Plaintiffs filing a negligence claim against the Home Office.

  • The Home Office's denial of duty of care and subsequent legal proceedings, including appeals, are highlighted.

• The final judgment dismisses the Home Office's appeal, affirming the duty of care owed to the Plaintiffs and rejecting the argument for immunity based on public policy.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• 3 Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged a boat.

• The owner sued the home office for negligence.

• HL held that the Borstal officers, for whom the Home Office (HO) was vicariously liable, owed a duty to take such care as was reasonable in the circumstances to prevent the boys damaging property, provided there was a manifest risk of that occurring if they did not take such care.

  • Since the risk was manifest (they knew of the boys’ criminal records, etc.), HO was liable.

  • Public policy was also in favour of making HO liable. 

Lord Pearson

• There was a duty of care to the boat owners under the definition of “neighbourhood” by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson.

• NB Pearson says that this is not a universal test but is a general test, to be applied except where it would produce injustice: the test is to be applied unless there is a reason for not applying it. He dismisses each claimed reason for not applying the test.

• There IS sufficient proximity here because there isn’t only physical proximity but the harm was also foreseeable.

  • HO WAS responsible for the boys due to the special relationship between them, despite the boys being legal adults.

  • Although Borstal training sometimes requires giving boys greater freedom, this may only diminish but not eradicate the duty and it is therefore not against public policy interests to make HO liable for Borstal boys’ actions.

Lord Reid

• He takes a different approach to Pearson.

• He says that where there is a NAI between R’s carelessness and the ultimate damage, it is still possible to sue R provided that the damage was highly probable, and NOT mere foreseeability, as in cases where the damage is direct

  • (the “very probable” requirement emphasises that the NAI is a consequence of R’s carelessness. “Mere foreseeability” could allow R to be liable even where the damage comes from a new, separate cause, with little connection to the original carelessness). 

Lord Diplock

• Lord Atkin’s dictum, as he himself said, was not to be applied universally but merely “generally” (i.e. not always) since this would unduly restrict the law.

• If it can be established:

  1. That the officers were acting in breach of their instructions (and not acting in pursuance of discretion granted to them, in which case they, and thus the HO would not be liable) and

  2. That in breaching the instructions the harm was reasonably foreseeable, a duty of care to the boat owners existed.

  3. He says the key point is that the criminal has been negligently allowed to escape.

• Therefore the police would NOT be liable if the criminal escaped and committed crimes out of habit, as opposed to crimes used to facilitate the escape itself.

• Nor would police be liable if they released a prisoner who then committed crimes. 

----

Foreseeability, vicarious liability, proximity and public policy are all considered in deciding whether the duty existed. 

RELATED CASES

• Lamb v Camden LBC

• Donoghue v Stevenson

• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire