Pubic authorities – negligence actions – control devices

Legal Studies ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Brodie
Keyword(s):  
County Council ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Common Thread ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Common ◽  
Control Devices

X (minors) v Bedfordshire County Council is by far the most important decision on the liability in negligence of public authorities since Anns v Merton London Borough Council. These two authorities, along with Dorset Yacht Co v Home Office, furnish the ground rules for such actions. The leading judgment in X v Bedfordshire CC, in which all his brethren concur, is given by Lord Browne- Wilkinson; the only other judgment being given by Lord Jauncey. The common thread running through this trilogy of cases is the emphasis on the significance of the element of discretion in the exercise of the statutory functions of a public authority: ‘Most statutes which impose a statutory duty on local authorities confer on the authority a discretion as to the extent to which, and the methods by which, such statutory duty is to be performed’.

Is there a Duty to Prevent Harm in Tort? A Common Law Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-145
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common

Abstract In this paper, I will examine the extent to which the common law of tort in England and Wales imposes a duty to prevent harm on public authorities and private individuals. As will be seen, the starting point for the common law is that such liability should, in both cases, be regarded as exceptional. This must, however, be weighed against duties to prevent harm that arise under the torts of negligence and breach of statutory duty. Public authorities may also face claims that their failure to prevent harm is in breach of ECHR arts 2 or 3. While the law is complex, this paper identifies three key arguments that explain the current legal position at common law, namely that: (i) tort law should treat private and public parties alike: (ii) human rights claims should be treated as distinct from private law claims and (iii) libertarian concerns signify that a duty to prevent harm should be exceptional and needs to be justified. While these arguments provide both an explanation of and a justification for the current law, this article questions to what extent the treatment of public authority liability may be regarded as unduly harsh on vulnerable claimants.

Public authority negligence revisited

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.H. Bailey ◽  
M.J. Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire, Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council. It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

scholarly journals THE NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR OMISSIONS

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-569
Author(s):  
Tom Cornford
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

AbstractIn this article I address the question of whether the omissions principle – the principle that the common law does not impose liability for omissions – applies with the same force in negligence cases involving public authority defendants as in cases involving private defendants. My argument is that the answer depends upon the answer to a prior question: can a duty of care be based upon the public law powers and duties of a public authority? In making my argument, I refute the views both of those who insist that a claim in negligence against a public authority can be rejected purely because it relates to an omission not falling within one of the standard exceptions to the omissions principle and of those who insist that such a claim can succeed while at the same denying that a duty of care can be based on a public authority's public law powers and duties.

THE LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS FOR BULLYING

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294
Author(s):  
Jesse Elvin
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
County Council ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Sussex County ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

InBradford-Smart v. West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 07, Leah Bradford-Smart, a former pupil of a school maintained by West Sussex County Council, based her claim for damages for psychiatric injury and consequent loss on the school’s failure to prevent fellow pupils bullying her outside the school. It is clear that “a school is under a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of the pupils in its charge” (Van Oppen v. Clerk to Bedford Charity Trustees [1990] 1 W.L.R. 235, 250), and that it also assumes responsibility for a pupil’s educational needs (X v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 A.C. 633, 766, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000] 2 A.C. 619). In Bradford-Smart, the Court of Appeal held that a school is generally responsible for its pupils only when they are inside the school, but that exceptional circumstances might arise when failing to take reasonable steps to combat bullying occurring outside the school would give rise to a breach of its duty of care to a pupil.

The Policy/Operational Dichotomy—A Cuckoo In The Nest

1986 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 430-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. H. Bailey ◽  
M. J. Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Local Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Under Construction ◽  
Operational Aspects

In the case of Anns v. Merton London Borough Council,1 Lord Wilberforce, in considering the negligence liability of a local authority arising out of the exercise of its statutory powers to inspect buildings under construction, drew a distinction between the “policy” and “operational” aspects of the authority's functions and suggested that liability would more readily arise in respect of the latter. Since that time it has become common to consider the liability of public authorities generally in the tort of negligence by reference to this “policy/operational” dichotomy.

Alternative Remedies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Dan Squires QC
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Alternative Remedies

This book focuses primarily upon claims brought against public authorities for the tort of negligence. Where a public authority causes harm to an individual, either deliberately or carelessly, there may also be other remedies available to the injured party. The present chapter considers some of the more important alternative remedies, though perhaps the most significant alternative now available are claims brought under the Human Rights Act 1998, which are considered separately in Chapter 7. In this chapter we examine the torts of misfeasance in public office and breach of statutory duty as well as judicial review proceedings and complaints to the Ombudsmen.

Search for Principle - The Government's Liability in Negligence for the Careless Exercise of its Statutory Powers

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 629
Author(s):  
Thomas Geuther
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
High Court Of Australia

For many years the English courts have struggled to develop a principled approach for determining when a public authority can owe a duty of care in respect of the exercise of its statutory powers. Initially, public authorities received no special treatment. Then the courts conferred an almost complete immunity on them, requiring public law irrationality to be established before considering whether a duty could arise. The English approach has not been adopted elsewhere in the Commonwealth. The High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Canada have developed different tests, and the New Zealand courts, while never explicitly rejecting the English position, have never followed it. This paper argues that a modified version of the Canadian Supreme Court's approach should be adopted in New Zealand. It proposes that irrationality be a precondition to the existence of a duty of care only where policy considerations are proved to have influenced the decisions of a public authority in exercising its statutory powers.

The Logicism of Frege, Dedekind, and Russell

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Demopoulos ◽  
Peter Clark
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
The Core ◽  
Common Thread ◽  
Synthetic A Priori ◽  
The Common

This article is organized around logicism's answers to the following questions: What is the basis for our knowledge of the infinity of the numbers? How is arithmetic applicable to reality? Why is reasoning by induction justified? Although there are, as is seen in this article, important differences, the common thread that runs through all three of the authors discussed in this article their opposition to the Kantian thesis that reflection on reasoning with mere concepts (i.e., without attention to intuitions formed a priori) can never succeed in providing satisfactory answers to these three questions. This description of the core of the view differs from more usual formulations which represent the opposition to Kant as an opposition to the contention that mathematics in general, and arithmetic in particular, are synthetic a priori rather than analytic.

Pensare Dio. Spunti di riflessione in dialogo con Anca Vasiliu

Elenchos ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-194
Author(s):  
Angela Longo
Keyword(s):  
Late Antiquity ◽  
Human Being ◽  
Common Thread ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Relevant Topic ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Trinity

AbstractThe following work features elements to ponder and an in-depth explanation taken on the Anca Vasiliu’s study about the possibilities and ways of thinking of God by a rational entity, such as the human being. This is an ever relevant topic that, however, takes place in relation to Platonic authors and texts, especially in Late Antiquity. The common thread is that the human being is a God’s creature who resembles him and who is image of. Nevertheless, this also applies within the Christian Trinity according to which, not without problems, the Son is the image of the Father. Lastly, also the relationship of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, always within the Trinity, can be considered as a relationship of similarity, but again not without critical issues between the similarity of attributes, on the one hand, and the identity of nature, on the other.

scholarly journals Challenges of Spa Tourism in Andalusia: Experts’ Proposed Solutions

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1829 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosa Anaya-Aguilar ◽  
German Gemar ◽  
Carmen Anaya-Aguilar
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
Delphi Method ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Autonomous Community ◽  
Tourism Destination ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Common Thread ◽  
The Common

Water is the common thread and attraction factor of the tourism facilities called “spas”, which are part of health and beauty services. Spa use is currently experiencing a boom that reflects changes in populations, such as an increase in economic wellbeing and a desire to reunite with nature. This research’s objectives were to understand spa tourism’s structural and operational dimensions and to assess this sector’s current situation by using the Delphi method with a panel of 22 experts. The results show that these experts believe that, in Andalusia, spas energize the area as a tourism destination through their natural resources and conservation of key elements. However, spa development policies are scarce, including a lack of autonomous community laws regarding these facilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document