Palmer v Tees Health Authority [2000] PIQR

Facts:

  • Mrs Palmer alleged that the defendant health authority had been negligent in its assessment of a mentally ill patient – Armstrong – who kidnapped, sexually assaulted, killed and mutilated her 4-year-old daughter Rosie upon his release from a secure unit.
  • While under treatment for his illness, Armstrong stated that he had sexual feelings towards children and threatened to abduct and murder a child.
  • Post-release, he failed to attend an outpatient appointment.

 Issue:

  • Whether there was a duty of care towards the family of a child killed by a mentally disordered man being seen as an out-patient but not detained?


 Ratio:

  • CoA, relying on Hill, found that the health authority owed neither Mrs Palmer nor Rosie a duty of care, as the necessary level of proximity between the claimants and the defendant did not exist.
  • The child was not identifiable as a potential victim (as in Hill), meaning the health authority could have done nothing to prevent her murder, other than keep the patient detained.
  • There was no special relationship that could give rise to a duty of care.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more

Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567

Facts: C, a burglar, was shot by D as he attempted to gain access to D’s shed. C sued D in negligence and under the 1984 Act. Ratio: CoA rejected D’s attempt to raise the defence of illegality. C was contributorily negligent and his damages decreased by ⅔.
Read more

‘The rise of the judicial use of proportionality has given too much power to judges’. Discuss with reference to relevant cases.

Where people argue that the proportionality test hands too much power to the judiciary in relation to government policies, rather, it hands a schematic tool to the judiciary to ensure that law remains democratic in the broader meaning of the term. How the proportionality test is applied has been significantly nuanced and developed according to context.
Read more