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

This is an appeal case concerning whether an ambulance service can owe any duty of care to a member of the public on whose behalf a '999' call is made if, due to carelessness, it fails to arrive within a reasonable time. The claimant was awarded damages amounting to 362,377 pounds, against the London Ambulance Service (LAS), who have now appealed against the decision.

The claimant is an asthmatic. On 16 February 1991, she suffered an asthma attack. A doctor attended her home and phoned for an ambulance at 16.25, giving the claimant's name, address and age and stating that she was suffering from bronchial asthma. It was requested that the ambulance take her "immediately please" to casualty where she was expected. The control replied 'okay doctor." The claimant's husband made another call at 16.38 as the ambulance had not arrived and was told they would arrive in 7 to 8 minutes. The doctor phoned again at 16.54 as the ambulance had still not arrived. The ambulance finally arrived at 17.05 and the claimant eventually arrived at the casualty department at 17.17.

A member of the ambulance crew recorded the arrival time at the claimant's home as 16.47 and the judge found that the record had been intentionally falsified. No explanation was given about why it had taken the ambulance 34 minutes to travel 6.5 miles. The issue of a reasonable response time was discussed. The doctor attending the claimant stated that if she would have known how long the ambulance would have taken, then she would have asked the claimant's husband to drive her to the hospital.

The main issue of this case was whether or not the claimant was owed a duty of care.

Court decision