General Cases >> Negligence >> Case 1 / Case 2 / Case 3 / Case 4 / Case 5 / Case 6 / Case 7 / Case 8

Kent v Griffiths (2000) Lloyd's Rep Med 109, (2000) 2 All ER 474 (CA) - Duty of Care case

Court decision

The LAS lost the appeal. Once a call to an ambulance service has been accepted, the service is dealing with a named individual upon whom the duty becomes focused. Furthermore, if an ambulance service is called and agrees to attend the patient, those caring for the patient normally abandon any attempt to find an alternative means of transport to the hospital.

Lord Woolf MR stated that in his judgment "The fact that it was person who foreseeably would suffer further injuries by a delay in providing an ambulance, when there was no reason why it should not be provided, is important in establishing the necessary proximity and thus duty of care in this case. In other words, as there were no circumstances which made it unfair or unreasonable or unjust that liability should exist, there is no reason why there should not be liability if the arrival of the ambulance was delayed for no good reason. The acceptance of the call in this case established the duty of care. On the findings of the judge it was delay which caused the further injuries. If wrong information had not been given about the arrival of the ambulance, other means of transport could have been used."

There was no question of an ambulance not being available or of a conflict in priorities, which may have changed the outcome, and so the appeal was dismissed

Back