Emergency services liable where responsibility is assumed and detrimental reliance has taken place

18 July 2018 by

Sherratt v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] EWHC 1746 (QB) (16 July 2018) – read judgment

This was an appeal on a preliminary issue from the decision of David Berkeley QC, sitting as the Recorder below. The question was whether the defendant chief constable owed a duty of care to the claimant’s partner, who had committed suicide.

The Recorder found that the defendant, either by his officers, employees or agents, failed expeditiously and/or adequately to deal with, and/or respond to, the information conveyed to them concerning the deceased in a 999 call made by the deceased’s mother.

King J upheld the Recorder’s findings and dismissed the appeal.

Background facts

At 6:44pm on 29 January 2012 the deceased’s mother put in a 999 call to the Greater Manchester Police, expressing concern about the welfare of her daughter. She was unable to drive to her daughter’s home herself because of ill health. She made it clear that her daughter, who was on her own with her youngest child, might take an overdose of the anti-depressant medication she was on. The transcript of the call reveals that the mother told the call handler that the claimant had been dissuading the deceased from risking her life:

he said he was battling with her to stop her taking an overdose…’

(Of course this is not evidence but hearsay, a point picked up by the police in this appeal.)  The call handler, of whom no criticism was made,  graded the call as Grade 1 (Emergency Attendance). Shortly afterwards the call was downgraded to Grade 2 (‘priority Attendance’). Officers attended the deceased’s home address at 10.19pm but there was no response, the house was in darkness and they did not gain access. When at 8.17 am on Monday 30thof January (2012) two officers attended the house, they were admitted by one of the children and found the deceased dead in the living room. She was 37 years of age and the mother of two infant boys. The medical cause of death was an overdose of her Amitriptyline medication.

The Recorder conceptualised the issue thus:

‘in the context of this claim, either a duty of care arose as a consequence of the 999 call (which is the pleaded case in the Particulars of Claim) or no duty of care ever arose’.

He clarified that merely by answering a 999 call the relevant service does not assume responsibility. Even by attending upon a call the relevant service does not assume responsibility. This assumption is an essential element for a negligence claim to be made out.

Assumption / acceptance of responsibility as the source of the duty of care

Liability in this context is predicated upon a duty of care arising because of the acceptance by the police of responsibility for the welfare of the deceased. In this instance  acceptance was as a result of ‘taking the mother’s call; creating an incident log, informing the mother that they would deal with the incident and agreeing to dispatch officers to the house’.

For assumption of responsibility to give rise to liability, two elements are needed:

  1. assurance to the deceased’s mother, coupled with
  2. a ‘detrimental reliance by the mother.

This is an established test for emergency call handler liability in the USA and Canada, and is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court following the hearing in Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 151 involving an A & E receptionist (7 July 2018, judgment not yet available). It is further refined as a “but for” test. In other words, the court has to be convinced, in this instance, that the mother would, but for the the assurance, have taken other steps that she would have deemed necessary, including calling for an ambulance herself, and/or soliciting the assistance of others; and/or made her own way to the house. Since there was no suggestion that the mother took any of those steps, and given that from the recording of the 999 conversation she appeared to have been reassured and indeed expressed her gratitude to the police, the Recorder had “no hesitation in finding that there was sufficient reliance to impose a duty”

Proximity 

In the County Court the defendant maintained that no duty of care could arise in the present case, because any assurance was given to the mother and not to the deceased and any reliance was that of the mother and not that of the deceased. The Recorder did not accept this submission.

I am satisfied that there was a sufficient degree of proximity between the Chief Constable and the deceased which created the relationship upon which the duty could arise.

Taking account of all the circumstances of the case and considering precedent cases and representations from both sides, the Recorder concluded that by the time the 999 call had finished, a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the deceased. The Recorder considered this case on all fours with Kent v Griffiths [2001] 1QB 36 – where the ambulance service was held liable for the injury suffered by an asthmatic who had been assured that they were on their way, and who therefore missed the opportunity of being taken to hospital by his doctor. Kent was “instructive” as the relevant assurances were given to the doctor and not to the claimant and the reliance was similarly that of the doctor and not necessarily the claimant and yet a duty of care was imposed.

Although the police handler did not state any specific time as to when the police would arrive, the clear message being given to the mother was twofold, namely that help for her daughter was going to be dispatched to her house promptly and quickly and secondly that she should leave with the police any need for the daughter to get to hospital. These were broadly in line with the assurances given in Kent and broadly to like effect.

The QB was satisfied that there was a direct relationship between the deceased and the police so as to give rise to a duty. Not only the communication between the mother and the police, but evidence that the police assumed responsibility and the reliance on the assurances given was sufficient to bring this case within the ‘assumption of responsibility’ exception,

notwithstanding the assurances were given to her mother rather than to the deceased herself and notwithstanding the reliance was by the mother rather than the deceased.

…In both cases the communication was between the emergency services and a third party who was concerned for the welfare of the vulnerable person who was likely to come to harm if urgent action was not taken. In both cases (on my findings) assurances were given to that third party and detrimental reliance occurred”

A further complication arises. If the deceased had not been in the care or custody of the police, whence arises duty on the part of the police to prevent self-harm or to deal with its consequences? And if there is such a duty, does it not interfere with the autonomy of the individual concerned, since suicide is no longer a crime?

Kent partly answered this problem. Even on the slim evidence available, it was clear that the mother and the deceased had a mutual interest in getting the emergency services to the house, the mother having reported that her daughter had contacted social services to get help on previous occasions.

On the Recorder’s findings, the [police] had accepted a responsibility for the deceased’s welfare having been told in effect that she represented a risk to her own safety due to her mental state. (The mother had told them that her daughter was ‘at the end of her tether’).

The police had accepted responsibility for her in circumstances where the intervention of another agency may have prevented her death. In these circumstances it was not necessary for the appellant to have detained the deceased – for example under the Mental Health Act – for a duty of care to arise. The actions and words of the call handler were sufficient to affix the appellant with responsibility for the deceased’s safety notwithstanding the threat was from herself – and this was particularly so where the mother was being told that she need do no more.

 

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: