Key Case | Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) | Negligence - Duty of Care

This case established that the Caparo test only needs applying in new and novel cases and that the courts should generally establish a duty by looking at existing duty situations and ones with clear analogy.

CASE SUMMARY

Claimant: Mrs Robinson a 76-year-old frail woman

Defendant: West Yorkshire Police (on behalf of the actions of their officers)

Facts: Mrs Robinson suffered injuries when she was knocked over and fallen on by two Police Officers who were physically apprehending a suspected drug dealer whilst she was in close physical proximity. Both the trial court and Court of Appeal held that as Police Officers the two were immune from a claim in negligence in line with the existing authority on this point, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989).

Outcome: Liable

Legal principle: the Caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case, instead the courts should look to existing statutes and precedents and identify duties through analogy. Where there is an existing or analogous duty that can be applied, the courts do not need to consider the Caparo test, as such consideration has already been determined, recognising the duty. Only in novel duty situations does this need to be considered.

Additionally, public authorities are subject to the same liabilities in tort law as private individuals. They are under a duty not to cause the public harm via their own actions, but are not under a duty to prevent harm from third parties. The Police are not exempt from claims in negligence.