Home+Office+v.+Dorset+Yacht+Co.+Ltd


 * Apologies... due to wiki-summary time management problems, will post my summary later. For now, here is one borrowed from another summary - name of author unknown (in interest of full disclosure ;)).

__ Issues: __ Does the Home Office owe the plaintiffs a duty of care? __ Holding: __ Yes.
 * ** Home Office v. Dorset Yacht (1970) House of Lords ** ||
 * __ Facts: __ The plaintiffs filed suit against the Home Office, a public authority, for damage to their yachts in negligence.

__ Reasoning: __ Per Lord Reid, when Parliament confers discretion on others to execute a policy, there is no immunity for people who exercise their power so carelessly and unreasonably.There is no liability if the discretion is executed with due care.Reid also explains that although the boys “intervened” to cause the damage to the plaintiff, the common law can look behind the intervention to identify the responsible party, if the plaintiff can establish foreseeability.

Lord Morris recognized the officers should have appreciated that due to an earlier escape, a future escape was likely.The risk of damage to the boat owners was foreseeable.Morris considered whether any policy considerations should negate the imposition of a duty. This was a case where the state had a duty, by means of a special relationship with the Borstal trainees, from taking reasonable care to prevent damage.

Lord Pearson explained that this case must come under Donoghue, unless the court can conclude that the plaintiff is not.He finds that the duty extends to protect the property interests – the boats – near the prison, but not to prevent the damage that occurred from the escape altogether.

* Lord Diplock stated that the limit to the neighbourliness is defined by property that is close to the island.Although the public shares the risk of an escape, the plaintiff’s property was subject to an increase of risk by the fault of the supervisors.

Diplock recognized that “policy decision will be influenced by the same general conception of what ought to give rise to a duty of care as.”Diplock attempts to assess which interests are foreseeable to the Home Office.Diplock recognizes the need to balance to one interest against the other.

__ Rationale: __ **The court will consider public policy to limit the delineation of a duty of care – either by limiting by the class of plaintiff or the type of injury suffered.**

__ Critique: __ Viscount Dilhorne finds no authority that states that a custodians of persons in lawful custody are liable for escapees. ||