- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (1999) HL
I. Facts of the Case
I. Facts of the Case
- Victim (V) was held in custody.
- Prior Incidents: V attempted to hang himself twice on the same day.
- Fatal Incident: V subsequently hung and killed himself using his shirt through cell bars.
- Circumstances of Death: V was left unsupervised for a few minutes when the fatal incident occurred.
- Whether the police (defendants) breached their duty of care towards V, and if so, whether any defences were available.
- The defendant police commissioners were contributorily negligent.
- They had breached their duty of care owed to V.
- Principle: This defence is not applicable when the intervening act is precisely the event to which the duty of care was directed.
- Reasoning (per Lord Jauncey):
- Given the admitted breach of duty of care, novus actus interveniens cannot assist the commissioner.
- The deceased's suicide was the precise event to which the duty was directed.
- As an actus (act), it was neither novus (new) nor interveniens (interfering).
- Principle: This defence does not succeed in this case.
- Reasoning (per Lord Hobhouse):
- To qualify as an autonomous choice (free and unconstrained), the choice must be:
- Voluntary
- Deliberate
- Informed
- If a plaintiff is under a disability (due to lack of mental capacity or age), they will lack autonomy.
- Consequently, a person lacking autonomy will not have made a free and unconstrained choice.
- To qualify as an autonomous choice (free and unconstrained), the choice must be:
- Principle: Damages recoverable should be reduced to reflect the deceased's contribution to their own demise.
- Reasoning (per Lord Hoffman):
- The act of the deceased was a substantial cause of his own demise.
- Any damages recoverable by the plaintiff should be reduced to reflect this.
- Outcome: Damages were reduced 50/50.
0 Comments