## Facts

- A group of young offenders, supervised by Home Office officers, were undergoing training on an island.
- The officers had explicit instructions to supervise the trainees but failed to maintain adequate control.
- Seven trainees escaped due to the officers' lack of supervision and damaged a nearby yacht.
- The yacht owners sued the Home Office, alleging their loss resulted from the officers' negligent failure to control the trainees.
- The court was required to decide if the Home Office owed a duty of care to third parties whose property might be harmed by the actions of persons under their control, focusing on whether the custodial relationship imposed such a legal duty.

## Issues

1. Whether the Home Office owed a duty of care to third parties for harm caused by individuals under its control.
2. Whether the foreseeability and proximity resulting from the custodial relationship established liability for harm caused by the trainees.
3. To what extent existing precedent regarding duty of care, especially concerning third-party interventions, should be modified or interpreted.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that a duty of care may arise where the defendant exercises control over another whose actions foreseeably cause harm.
- A special relationship of control, as between borstal officers and the trainees, established sufficient proximity to found liability.
- Foreseeability that the trainees would inflict damage was established; thus, the Home Office could be liable for the negligent supervision.
- The court departed from a strict approach that limited liability for acts of third parties, expanding the circumstances in which such a duty is recognized.

## Legal Principles

- Duty of care in negligence may arise where there is a special relationship of control or responsibility, even where harm is caused by a third party.
- The "neighbour principle" from Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 underpins this approach, with the focus on reasonable foreseeability and relational proximity.
- The decision marked a shift towards considering proximity and foreseeability for third-party actions, rather than restricting claims to direct acts.
- Later cases refined remoteness (Lamb v Camden) and limited the extension of such duties, especially regarding public bodies (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire).
- The legal approach has been further systematized by the three-stage test in Caparo Industries v Dickman, which incorporates foreseeability, proximity, and policy considerations.

## Conclusion

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd is a leading authority for establishing that duty of care in negligence may exist where a party exerts control over others, making it foreseeable that their negligence could cause third-party harm. The case broadened the scope for finding such duties but has been refined by subsequent authorities, which clarify the limits of liability and introduce policy considerations, especially for public bodies and in cases involving acts of third parties.


Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL)