Trial·Breaker SQE1
SQE1 › FLK1 › Tort › Question
SQE1 · FLK1 · Tort

Duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss) — SQE1 Tort question

A worked single-best-answer question on duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss), with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.

Duty of care (including psychiatric harm and economic loss)

Two police officers attempted to arrest a suspected drug dealer on a busy town centre pavement. They could see that Edna, an elderly pedestrian, was standing immediately next to the suspect. The suspect resisted, and in the struggle he and the officers fell on top of Edna, injuring her. Edna sues the chief constable, alleging that the officers carried out the arrest negligently. The chief constable argues that the police owe no duty of care when performing their operational functions.

Which of the following best describes whether a duty of care was owed to Edna?

  1. AA duty was owed, because the officers' positive act carried a reasonably foreseeable risk of physical injury to her, and police are subject to the ordinary principles of negligence.
  2. BNo duty was owed, because the police have immunity from negligence claims arising out of the investigation and suppression of crime.
  3. CA duty was owed only if the Caparo three-stage test is satisfied, and public policy considerations make it unfair to impose one on the police.
  4. DNo duty was owed, because there is generally no duty to protect a person from harm caused by a third party.
  5. EA duty was owed only if the officers had assumed responsibility for her safety.
Show answer and reasoning
A is the best answer. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police the Supreme Court held that the police are subject to the same general principles of negligence as anyone else and owe a duty to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable physical injury by their positive acts. The Caparo test is not applied afresh where established principles govern. Here the officers' own actions in making the arrest caused Edna's injury.

Rule: The police, like anyone else, owe a duty of care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable physical injury through their positive acts.

  • B There is no general police immunity; Hill concerned a failure to protect from harm caused by a third party. (wrong rule)
  • C The Caparo three-stage test is not to be applied in an established category such as physical injury caused by a positive act. (wrong rule)
  • D This was a case of harm caused by the officers' positive act, not a pure omission to protect. (right rule, wrong facts)
  • E Assumption of responsibility is relevant to omissions and economic loss, not to physical injury caused by a positive act. (right rule, wrong facts)

Source: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4; Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53

Practise more Tort   All Tort subtopics