## Facts

- The claimant’s husband, a naval serviceman, was stationed at a naval base in Norway and consumed a large quantity of alcohol, leading to his collapse from intoxication.
- A duty officer arranged for the serviceman to be taken to his room, where he was left unattended and later died due to choking on his own vomit.
- The claimant alleged that the Ministry of Defence (MoD), as employer, was negligent in the care provided and owed a duty to prevent harm arising from the serviceman’s intoxication.
- Regulations, including Article 1810 of the Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy 1967, stated it was the duty of officers to discourage drunkenness.

## Issues

1. Whether the MoD owed a general duty of care to prevent an employee from self-inflicted harm through intoxication.
2. Whether a specific duty of care arose when the duty officer took charge of the incapacitated serviceman.
3. Whether the MoD was negligent in its actual care and supervision after assuming responsibility.
4. To what extent contributory negligence by the deceased affected the liability and damages awarded.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding there was no general duty on the MoD to prevent servicemen from harm caused by their own intoxication.
- The court found that a specific duty of care arose once the duty officer took active steps to care for the incapacitated serviceman, thereby assuming responsibility.
- The MoD, through the duty officer, was found negligent by failing to provide adequate supervision and not summoning medical assistance after assuming care.
- Damages to the claimant were reduced by two-thirds to reflect the contributory negligence of the deceased serviceman.

## Legal Principles

- A general employer-employee relationship does not create a duty to prevent adults from self-inflicted harm, especially through intoxication.
- A duty of care may arise via assumption of responsibility, where a party takes positive steps to care for someone who is incapacitated.
- The distinction between liability for positive acts (misfeasance) and omissions (nonfeasance) is essential; the latter may only give rise to liability where responsibility is assumed.
- Contributory negligence can reduce damages where the injured party’s own actions contributed to their harm.
- Public policy considerations limit broad duties to prevent self-harm to preserve individual responsibility and prevent undue liability.

## Conclusion

Barrett v Ministry of Defence establishes that, while employers do not owe a general duty to prevent employees’ self-harm, a specific duty arises upon assuming responsibility for their care, and contributory negligence may significantly reduce damages in such cases.


Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 3 All ER 87