Accepting a 999 call established a duty of care, as it created proximity. MASTER OF THE ROLLSLORD JUSTICE ALDOUS AND LORD JUSTICE LAWS _____ This resulted in brain damage and miscarriage. These injuries would have been avoided if the ambulance had arrived on time. The applicant`s doctor testified that if he had known that the ambulance had taken so long, he would have had the applicant`s husband take her to the hospital. The plaintiff sued the ambulance service for negligence. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the applicant. The ambulance service owed a duty of care to the applicant after he accepted the 999 call for help. They violated this obligation by not showing up on time without good reason. The main consequence was that the plaintiff had suffered very serious harm that, at best, could have been completely avoided. The doctor at the applicants` home called 999 about the applicants` asthma attack. As a result of the delay, the Applicant suffered respiratory arrest.
(Copy of judgment of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet StreetLondon EC4A 2HDTel No: 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) The Court of Appeal distinguished between emergency services and police and firefighters, who are generally not required by the public to exercise due diligence in the exercise of their powers. Ambulance services are more like doctors taking care of patients. Their only concern is the interest of the individual patient, and there are usually no conflicting priorities between the interests of the patient and those of the general public. First and 2.1 class answers to learn structuring problems and essay questions. References: [2001] QB 36; [2000] 2 WLR 1158; [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2000] PIQR, p. 57; [2000] Lloyd`s Rep Med 109; (2000) 97(7) LSG 41. Simple yet detailed case summaries with relevant images that you can remember easily. Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36 is a tort law case involving negligence and due diligence.
Did the ambulance owe a duty of care to the applicant? Necessary cookies are necessary to enable the basic functionality of this website, such as secure login or adjusting your consent settings. These cookies do not store any personal data. Mrs. Kent, who was pregnant at the time, suffered an asthma attack at home. His doctor called 999 and asked for an ambulance to be sent to the patient. The ambulance took 38 minutes to arrive, while the controller responding to the doctor`s call misindicated the expected time of arrival several times. As a result of the delay, the applicant suffered respiratory arrest and miscarriage. Subsequently, she raised, inter alia: Action against London Ambulance Service (LAS) for negligence. The plaintiff won at first instance and the LAS appealed, after which the Court of Appeal concluded: summarizing everything you need to know from textbooks, court decisions and journal articles in a few pages. Save time by focusing on the essentials.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information about metrics such as number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc. References: [2001] Q.B. 36, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1158, [2000] 2 All E.R. 474, [2000] 2 WLUK 96, [2000] P.I.Q.R. P57, [2000] Lloyd`s Rep. Med. 109, (2000) 97(7) L.S.G. 41, (2000) 150 N.L.J. 195, (2000) 144 S.J.L.B.
106, Times, February 10, 2000, Independent, February 9, 2000, [2000] C.L.Y. 4204 Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 All ER 474 is an English tort case of the Court of Appeal for negligence, in particular the duty of care of emergency services; in particular the ambulance service. Emergency services generally have no duty of care to the public, except in certain limited circumstances (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, [1989] AC 53 (HL). Mr. James Munby, QC and Ms. Mary O`Rourke (appointed by Mr. Capsticks, London SW15 2TT) appeared for the appellant MS ELIZABETH-ANNE GUMBEL QC (on behalf of MESSRS. T G Baynes & Sons, Kent, DA15 7ER) appeared for the respondent ____ We have summarized and simplified the information that is too complicated for you. We`ve created simple notes with exam tips, case summaries, sample essays, tutorial videos, quizzes, and flashcards, all designed specifically to get you first class in the easiest way. Keywords: emergency services, duty of care, negligence However, the Court of Appeal noted that a different result could lead to a different conclusion if the allocation of the service`s resources was criticized.
For example, if the 999 operator had not been able to provide an ambulance because there were not enough ambulances, this would not fall within the scope of the duty of care in this case. The emergency services, the health service, i.e. the fire brigade and the police rescue authorities are not relevant. Advertising cookies are used to show visitors personalized advertisements based on previously visited pages and to analyze the effectiveness of advertising campaigns. Emergency services have a duty of care for negligence as soon as they accept calls for help. The plaintiff filed two simultaneous claims for negligence. The first, which was quickly dismissed, against her doctor and the second, much more important, against the London Ambulance Service, after an ambulance ordered by the doctor through a 999 call took forty minutes to reach her home, where she suffered a severe asthma attack, causing the complainant to stop breathing. [1] In cases of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that this duty was breached, and that the breaches for which the plaintiff is seeking damages were a consequence of that breach. The court considered whether it was an ambulance service (following Alexandrou v. Oxford, Oll v.
Secretary of State for Transport and Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council, where it was held that the police, Her Majesty`s Coast Guard and Hampshire County Council had been unable to do so). Firefighters do not have a duty of care[2] to those who rely on its services. [3] The Applicant was a pregnant woman who had suffered a severe asthma attack. Her doctor visited her and called 999, requesting an ambulance and informing the operator of the complainant`s condition. The operator told the doctor that an ambulance would arrive in about eight minutes. The ambulance took thirty-four minutes to arrive, and the paramedics simulated their arrival time to hide this. Paramedics never gave a reason for the delay. The Court also found that emergency services are not “volunteers” (who are usually only obliged not to aggravate the situation).
Specially designed to practice and memorize your knowledge. Kent sued the London Ambulance Service for negligence because the ambulance service did not respond immediately and did not give the plaintiff oxygen in the ambulance. The ambulance service is not required to exercise due diligence in the event of negligence if it refuses to respond to a 999 call (although it may be in breach of a legal obligation). Similarly, the burden on the applicant to prove a causal lack of adequate care (having regard to the particular circumstances of an emergency) would normally provide emergency services with the “necessary protection” from liability, unless their conduct is deficient.