Carmarthenshire v Lewis, [1955] AC 549

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Harriet is a caretaker at a respite home for individuals with severe learning difficulties. The respite home is located near a busy intersection frequently used by heavy vehicles. Harriet is aware that one patient has a tendency to wander off. One evening, she forgot to lock the main gate leading to the street. The patient walked onto the road, causing a passing lorry to make a sudden maneuver, resulting in a serious collision.


Which of the following best describes the respite home's potential duty of care in this situation?

Introduction

Negligence, a key aspect of tort law, arises when a party breaches a legal duty of care owed to another, causing foreseeable harm. Establishing negligence requires demonstrating the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, causation, and resulting damage. Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549 illustrates the complexities of duty of care, specifically concerning the responsibility of those entrusted with the supervision of individuals who may pose a foreseeable risk to others. This House of Lords decision explores the legal principles governing liability for omissions, particularly where the omission involves a failure to prevent harm caused by a third party, such as a young child. The case highlights the significance of foreseeability and proximity in determining the scope of a duty of care in such circumstances.

Duty of Care and Third-Party Actions

The central issue in Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis revolves around the duty of care owed by a local authority operating a nursery school. The case concerned a four-year-old child who wandered from the school premises onto a nearby road, causing a lorry driver to swerve to avoid him, resulting in a fatal accident. The House of Lords held the local authority liable for the driver's death, finding they owed a duty of care both to the children in their care and to road users. This duty stemmed from the foreseeable risk of harm arising from inadequate supervision of young children. The court recognized the natural vulnerability of children and the potential for their actions to create dangerous situations for themselves and others.

Foreseeability and Proximity: Establishing the Duty

The concept of foreseeability played an important role in the judgment. The court determined that the local authority should have reasonably foreseen the possibility of a child escaping from the nursery and causing an accident on the adjacent road. This foreseeability, coupled with the proximity of the nursery to the road, established the necessary relationship between the local authority and road users to impose a duty of care. The judges emphasized the specific circumstances, noting that the risk was not merely hypothetical but a real and present danger given the location and the age of the children.

Omissions and the Duty to Act

Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis clarifies the principle that a duty of care can arise from an omission, specifically the failure to prevent harm caused by a third party. Generally, there is no legal obligation to intervene and prevent harm caused by another individual's actions. However, certain relationships, like the one between a school and its pupils, create an exception. In such situations, the law recognizes a positive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. This duty arises from the control and responsibility that the supervisory party exercises over the individual who poses the risk.

The Scope of the Duty: Reasonable Care

The standard of care expected of the local authority was that of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. The court considered factors such as the age of the children, the layout of the nursery, and the proximity of the road in determining whether the local authority had taken reasonable precautions. The judgment did not impose a standard of absolute safety; rather, it required the local authority to take measures that a reasonable person would consider necessary to prevent foreseeable harm. This principle of reasonableness ensures that the duty of care is proportionate to the level of risk involved.

Implications and Subsequent Case Law

Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis has significantly influenced subsequent case law relating to the duty of care owed in supervisory relationships. The principles established in this case have been applied in various contexts, including schools, hospitals, and prisons. Cases such as Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 further developed the principles related to third-party liability, emphasizing the importance of control and foreseeability. This case, alongside Carmarthenshire, highlights the details of duty of care where the defendant is held responsible for the actions of another.

Conclusion

Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis remains a significant authority on the duty of care concerning third-party actions. The judgment established the principle that a duty can arise from an omission to prevent harm caused by an individual under one's control, particularly when the risk of harm is foreseeable. The case emphasizes the importance of considering factors such as proximity and the specific circumstances of the relationship in determining the scope of this duty. This decision, along with subsequent cases like Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd, provides a framework for understanding the complexities of negligence law where the defendant’s liability stems from the actions of another. The principles articulated in Carmarthenshire continue to guide judicial decisions in similar cases, supporting the importance of reasonable care in preventing foreseeable harm, especially in contexts involving vulnerable individuals and potential dangers to the public.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal