| Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Full case name | Robinson (Appellant) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Respondent) |
| Decided | 8 February 2018 |
| Citation(s) | [2018] UKSC 4 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Lord Reed |
| Concurrence | Lady Hale and Lord Hodge |
| Keywords | |
| |
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 is a leading English tort law case on the test for finding a duty of care. An elderly woman was injured by two police officers attempting to arrest a suspect and she claimed that the police owed her a duty of care not to be put in danger.[1] The UK Supreme Court found that the police did owe a duty of care in this case as there was no general rule that the police are not under any duty of care when performing their duties.[2]
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court reinterpreted and narrowed the leading case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and found that there was no single test for determining the duty of care, instead urging for an approach based on common law, precedent, and the incremental development of the law.[3] In novel cases, where established principles or previous cases did not already establish whether there would be a duty of care, the court would be entitled to go beyond these principles to decide whether to find one.[3] The Supreme Court also reinterpreted Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire to reject the proposition that the police would never owe a duty of care; rather, liability for negligence would arise where such liability would be present under ordinary tort principles.[4] Robinson is considered one of the most important cases in 2018, as it clarifies the liability of the police to members of the public and the general test towards finding a duty of care in general, in a significant shift from Caparo, which held that there was a three-part test to determining duty of care.[5][6][7]
- ^ Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Rev 1) [2018] UKSC 4 at paras. 4–7
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
isthisdykhookfactwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Rev 1) [2018] UKSC 4 at paras. 21–24, 27
- ^ Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Rev 1) [2018] UKSC 4 at paras. 54–70
- ^ "10 cases that defined 2018". UK Human Rights Blog. 20 December 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2021.
- ^ Cannon, Mark; Folkard, Joshua (13 August 2019). "The Caparo Illusion: The Three-Stage Test Has Gone. What Happens Next?". Lexology. Retrieved 4 March 2021.
- ^ Steele, Jenny (2017). Tort law : text, cases, and materials (Fourth ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-0-19-876880-7. OCLC 974463317.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search