The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, 2018 UKSC 4

Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, 2018 UKSC 4
Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, 2018 UKSC 4
When, in the performance of their roles, do public authorities owe a private law duty of care to those harmed by their actions, and thus face common law tort liability if they discharge their state functions carelessly? The latest case on duties for public authorities, Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, indicates that the private duties owed in tort by public entities are the same as any other party under the common law. Robinson involved a positive act by police which harmed an innocent bystander; the UKSC was unanimous that the police owed a private duty of care to the victim. The leading opinion by Lord Reed was unequivocal that public authorities face the same test for common law duty of care as any other entity, rather than enduring higher, enjoying more lenient, standards. While Lord Reed’s analysis offers a compelling synthesis of legal precedent, the alternative approach advanced by Lord Hughes and Lord Mance raises questions regarding the durability of Lord Reed’s reasoning.
UK Constitutional Law Association
Eisler, Jacob
a290dee3-c42f-4ede-af9a-5ede55d0135a
Eisler, Jacob
a290dee3-c42f-4ede-af9a-5ede55d0135a

Eisler, Jacob (2018) Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, 2018 UKSC 4.

Record type: Other

Abstract

When, in the performance of their roles, do public authorities owe a private law duty of care to those harmed by their actions, and thus face common law tort liability if they discharge their state functions carelessly? The latest case on duties for public authorities, Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, indicates that the private duties owed in tort by public entities are the same as any other party under the common law. Robinson involved a positive act by police which harmed an innocent bystander; the UKSC was unanimous that the police owed a private duty of care to the victim. The leading opinion by Lord Reed was unequivocal that public authorities face the same test for common law duty of care as any other entity, rather than enduring higher, enjoying more lenient, standards. While Lord Reed’s analysis offers a compelling synthesis of legal precedent, the alternative approach advanced by Lord Hughes and Lord Mance raises questions regarding the durability of Lord Reed’s reasoning.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 14 May 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 445394
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/445394
PURE UUID: fb482b98-aed2-458c-a30e-f336158258b6
ORCID for Jacob Eisler: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-4422-5255

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Dec 2020 17:32
Last modified: 13 Dec 2021 03:31

Export record

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×