## Facts

- The claimant, who was pregnant and suffered from asthma, required urgent medical assistance.
- Her general practitioner requested an ambulance from the London Ambulance Service (LAS) to transport her to hospital.
- The ambulance took thirty-eight minutes to arrive, which was considered an excessive delay.
- As a result of the delay, the claimant suffered a respiratory arrest leading to significant memory loss, a change in personality, and a miscarriage.
- The claimant alleged that LAS was negligent in its delayed response and brought a claim for damages.
- The core question was whether the ambulance service owed a duty of care to the claimant, and whether that duty was breached.

## Issues

1. Whether the ambulance service owed a duty of care to the claimant upon accepting the emergency call.
2. Whether the circumstances of the delay and the harm suffered established a breach of that duty.
3. Whether public policy considerations ought to preclude a finding of negligence against the ambulance service.
4. In what ways the assumption of responsibility by ambulance services differs from other public bodies, such as the police or fire service.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal determined that the ambulance service did owe a duty of care to the individual claimant once the specific request for medical assistance was accepted.
- The court distinguished ambulance services from other public authorities like police or fire services, emphasizing their role as part of the healthcare system owing duties directly to individuals.
- It was held to be reasonably foreseeable that delayed ambulance attendance could cause significant harm to the patient.
- The court found no sufficient public policy reason to deny a duty of care, as responding to specific medical crises did not warrant the same broad policy concerns as policing.
- The assurance that an ambulance would be dispatched constituted an assumption of responsibility, supporting the finding of a duty of care to the claimant.
- The ambulance service was found to have breached its duty through its unexplained delay, resulting in liability for the claimant’s injuries.

## Legal Principles

- The existence of a duty of care depends on foreseeability of harm, proximity between parties, and public policy considerations.
- Public bodies do not automatically owe a duty of care simply by virtue of their status; establishable only where an individual relationship and assumption of responsibility exist.
- Ambulance services, when responding to a specific request for medical help, are treated as healthcare providers owing a direct duty of care.
- Assumption of responsibility can be established by assurances or representations made on acceptance of a request for assistance.
- Public policy concerns may exclude or limit duties for some public services (e.g., police, fire), but do not preclude duties for ambulance services in individual cases.

## Conclusion

Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36 established that an ambulance service, once accepting a call, owes a duty of care to the individual patient, based on foreseeability, proximity, and assumption of responsibility, with public policy not preventing liability for negligence in this healthcare context.
