Dunnage v Randall & UK Insurance Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 673

Facts

  • The defendant (A), while visiting the claimant (C), experienced a severe schizophrenic episode.
  • During this episode, A set himself on fire with petrol, resulting in injuries to both A and C.
  • C sued A’s insurer (D) for negligence for the harm he suffered.
  • The central issue was whether A’s actions, influenced by his mental state, met the legal standard of care required in negligence.

Issues

  1. Does mental impairment alter the standard of care owed in negligence?
  2. Should the objective reasonable person standard be modified to account for a defendant’s mental illness?
  3. Was A’s conduct, despite being influenced by his schizophrenic episode, considered negligent under the prevailing legal test?
  4. How do exceptions apply when an individual’s actions are involuntary or caused by external forces?

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that A was negligent, as he had fallen below the standard of care required of a reasonable person, regardless of his mental impairment.
  • The judgment stressed the standard of care in negligence remains objective and does not accommodate personal characteristics or mental illness.
  • The court distinguished between acts influenced by a mental condition and those that are truly involuntary or caused by an external force, finding A’s conduct volitional.
  • The insurer (D) was held liable for C’s injuries resulting from A’s negligent act.

Legal Principles

  • The standard of care in negligence is that of a reasonable person, applied objectively, irrespective of the defendant’s mental state.
  • Mental impairments do not generally diminish the duty to act as a reasonable person would.
  • Exceptions may apply if the actions were wholly involuntary or the result of an external force.
  • Courts prefer a clear, objective standard to avoid subjective and complex medical inquiries into mental state.
  • Contrast: In Mansfield v Weetabix [1998] 1 WLR 1263, sudden medical incapacitation without prior knowledge could lead to a different outcome, but this was distinguished in Dunnage.

Conclusion

The decision in Dunnage v Randall & UK Insurance Ltd establishes that the standard of care in negligence remains objective, irrespective of mental impairment, except where actions are wholly involuntary. This promotes consistency and predictability in negligence law, limiting exceptions to cases involving total lack of volition.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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