Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co.

Infobox Court Case
name = Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co.
court = House of Lords


date_filed =
date_decided = 6 May 1970
full_name = The Home Office v. The Dorset Yacht Company Limited
citations = [1970] 2 All ER 294, [1970] AC 1004, [1970] UKHL 2
judges = Lord Reid
Lord Morris
Viscount Dilhorne
Lord Pearson
Lord Diplock
prior_actions = —
subsequent_actions = none
opinions = Lords Reid, Morris, Pearson and Diplock; Viscount Dilhorne gave a dissenting judgment
transcripts = [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1970/2.html Transcript of report at bailii.org]

"Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co." is a leading case in English law. It is a House of Lords decision on negligence and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the United Kingdom by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a duty of care. The case also addressed the liability of government bodies, a person's liability for the acts of third parties that he has facilitated, and liability for omissions.

Facts

On 21 September 1962, ten borstal trainees were working on Brownsea Island in the harbour under the control of three officers employed by the Home Office. Seven trainees escaped one night, at the time the officers had retired to bed leaving the trainees to their own devices. The seven trainees who escaped boarded a yacht and collided with another yacht, the property of the respondents, and damaged it. The owners of the yacht sued the Home Office in negligence for damages.

A preliminary issue was ordered to be tried on whether the officers or the Home Office owed a duty of care to the claimants capable of giving rise to liability in damages. It was admitted that the Home Office would be vicariously liable if an action would lie against any of the officers. The preliminary hearing found for the Dorset Yacht Co. that there was, in law, a duty of care and that the case could go forward for trial on its facts. The Home Office appealed to the House of Lords. The Home Office argued that it could owe no duty of care as there was no precedent for any duty on similar facts. Further, it was argued that there could be no liability for the actions of a third party and that the Home Office should be immune from legal action owing to the public nature of its duties.

Opinion of the Court

Neighbour principle: Historically, in English law, a duty of care was found in particular circumstances established by precedent. The courts had been reluctant to find new duties of care until the landmark judgment in "Donoghue v. Stevenson" in 1932 where Lord Atkin had stated his neighbour principle for finding a duty of care in broad circumstances. However, the principle had had little impact other than in the case of "Hedley Byrne v. Heller". In the "Dorset Yacht case" Lord Reid held:

quotation | .. the well-known passage in Lord Atkin's speech should I think be regarded as a statement of principle. It is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. But I think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explan-ation for its exclusion.

Lord Reid then applied the principle with particular emphasis on foreseeability:

Third parties

Omissions

Justiciability

Legal Significance

The case is perhaps relevant not only for its clear elucidation of the Atkinian notion of Neighbourhood but also for its expression of a thoroughly incrementalist approach to the development of the duty of care. Lord Reid held:

"‘there has been a steady trend toward regarding the law of negligence as depending on principle so that when a new point emerges one should ask not whether it is covered by authority but whether recognised principles apply to it. Donoghue and Stevenson may be regarded as a milestone, and the well-known passage in Lord Atkin’s piece should I think be regarded as a statement of principle … it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion. For example, causing economic loss is a different matter’"

Bibliography

* cite book | author=Booth, C. & Squires, D. | year=2006 | title=The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities | location=Oxford | publisher=Oxford University Press | id=ISBN 0-19-926541-0
*Law Commission (2008) " [http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp187_web.pdf Administrative Redress: Public bodies and the Citizen - A Consultation Paper] ", LC/187
* cite book | title=Tort Law:Text and Materials | author=Lunney, M. & Oliphant, K. | edition=2nd ed | publisher=Oxford University Press | location =Oxford | year=2003 | id=ISBN 0-19-926055-9
* cite book | title=Third Party Liability in Tort | author=McIvor, C. | publsher=Hart Publishing | year=2006 | location=London | id=ISBN 1841135526 | pages="pp"17-20