St George v Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068

Facts

• Mr. St George, the claimant, was a prisoner with a history of drug dependency.
• He sustained injuries during an altercation with another inmate while in custody.
• Mr. St George alleged that the Home Office, as the defendant, failed to provide adequate supervision, thereby breaching its duty of care.
• The defendant contended that the claimant’s drug dependency was a significant factor in the incident and argued this potentially reduced or negated liability.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant’s drug dependency was a relevant consideration in assessing the Home Office’s liability for the injuries sustained.
2. Whether the claimant’s drug dependency constituted contributory negligence affecting the right to recover damages.
3. Whether foreseeability and causation principles limited or excluded the Home Office’s liability given the claimant’s personal circumstances.

Decision

• The Court held that the claimant’s drug dependency, while relevant, did not absolve the defendant of liability.
• The Home Office’s failure to provide a safe environment for prisoners was found to be an independent and direct cause of the claimant’s injuries.
• The Court rejected the argument that the claimant’s drug dependency amounted to contributory negligence, determining it was a pre-existing condition rather than a voluntary act contributing to the harm.
• The duty of care owed by the Home Office extended to all prisoners regardless of personal circumstances.

Legal Principles

• A pre-existing condition such as drug or alcohol dependency does not amount to contributory negligence unless it directly and voluntarily contributes to the harm suffered.
• The defendant’s duty of care operates independently from the claimant’s personal vulnerabilities.
• Foreseeability remains central to the analysis of causation; a defendant remains liable where their breach foreseeably results in harm, even to claimants with pre-existing conditions.
• Defendants cannot evade liability solely by referring to a claimant’s personal circumstances if those circumstances are not a direct legal cause of the injury.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that claimants’ pre-existing conditions, such as drug dependency, do not amount to contributory negligence in negligence claims unless directly contributory in a legally relevant way. The Home Office was found liable for failing to provide a safe environment, affirming that the duty of care extends to all prisoners irrespective of their pre-existing vulnerabilities.