- Published on
KembaraXtra – Case Law -Kent v. Griffiths
Key Concept: Duty of Care Owed by Ambulance Service
Key Concept: Duty of Care Owed by Ambulance Service
- General Rule: Once an ambulance service accepts a 999 call and dispatches an ambulance, it owes a duty of care to the patient (the subject of the call). This duty requires the ambulance to arrive within a reasonable time.
- Facts:
- Patient (P) suffered a respiratory arrest.
- An ambulance was dispatched but failed to arrive in a reasonable time.
- No satisfactory explanation was given for the delay.
- Decision (Court of Appeal):
- The ambulance service did owe a duty of care to the patient.
- Failure to arrive within a reasonable time, without a good reason, constitutes a breach of that duty.
- Reasoning (Lord Woolf MR):
- Ambulance staff provide a health service, similar to doctors and nurses.
- Public policy arguments that protect the police and fire services are weaker for ambulance services in this context.
- Police and fire services have a primary duty to the public at large.
- In this specific case, the ambulance service's actions (or inaction) primarily affected one individual (the claimant).
- Once the ambulance service decides to provide an ambulance, a valid explanation is needed if it fails to arrive within reasonable time.
- Distinction: Under similar circumstances, the police or fire service are unlikely to be held to owe a duty of care to the subject of a 999 call. (See Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council (1996)).
- Reason: Police and Fire service's primary duty is to the public at large.
- Acceptance is Key: The duty of care arises upon acceptance of the 999 call and dispatch of the ambulance, not simply from the call being made.
- Reasonable Time: The ambulance must arrive within a "reasonable time." What constitutes "reasonable" will depend on the specific circumstances.
- Justification for Delay: If there's a delay, the ambulance service must provide a "good reason" to justify it.
0 Comments