Sherratt v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Sherratt v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

On the specific facts, the police, through assurances given by the call handler to the Deceased's mother, assumed responsibility for the Deceased's welfare. The mother relied on these assurances and took no further steps to secure help. This created sufficient proximity and an exception to the general rule against police liability. The duty of care arose even though the assurances and reliance were by a third party acting on behalf of the Deceased. The police were performing a welfare function, not their core public duty, and public policy did not preclude the duty. The appeal is dismissed; a duty of care was owed to the Deceased.

Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Paul Sherratt (for and on behalf of the members of the family of the late Ms Georgina Beevers); Defendant and Appellant: Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Preliminary Issue (existence of Duty of Care)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Public Authority Liability, Emergency Services, Proximity, Reliance
Tort Law Police Liability Negligence Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Public Authority Liability Emergency Services Proximity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Sherratt (for and on behalf of the members of the family of the late Ms Georgina Beevers)

Claimant and Respondent

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Defendant and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court on Preliminary Issue (existence of Duty of Care)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police owed a duty of care to the Deceased in response to a 999 call from her mother
  2. 2 Whether assurances given to a third party (the Mother) can give rise to a duty of care to the Deceased
  3. 3 Whether reliance by the Mother is sufficient to establish proximity and assumption of responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

On the specific facts, the police, through assurances given by the call handler to the Deceased's mother, assumed responsibility for the Deceased's welfare. The mother relied on these assurances and took no further steps to secure help. This created sufficient proximity and an exception to the general rule against police liability. The duty of care arose even though the assurances and reliance were by a third party acting on behalf of the Deceased. The police were performing a welfare function, not their core public duty, and public policy did not preclude the duty. The appeal is dismissed; a duty of care was owed to the Deceased.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the Recorder is upheld; by the conclusion of the 999 call, a duty of care was owed by the Defendant to the Deceased.