Facts
- The claimant’s husband, a naval serviceman, was stationed at a naval base in Norway and consumed a large quantity of alcohol, leading to his collapse from intoxication.
- A duty officer arranged for the serviceman to be taken to his room, where he was left unattended and later died due to choking on his own vomit.
- The claimant alleged that the Ministry of Defence (MoD), as employer, was negligent in the care provided and owed a duty to prevent harm arising from the serviceman’s intoxication.
- Regulations, including Article 1810 of the Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy 1967, stated it was the duty of officers to discourage drunkenness.
Issues
- Whether the MoD owed a general duty of care to prevent an employee from self-inflicted harm through intoxication.
- Whether a specific duty of care arose when the duty officer took charge of the incapacitated serviceman.
- Whether the MoD was negligent in its actual care and supervision after assuming responsibility.
- To what extent contributory negligence by the deceased affected the liability and damages awarded.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding there was no general duty on the MoD to prevent servicemen from harm caused by their own intoxication.
- The court found that a specific duty of care arose once the duty officer took active steps to care for the incapacitated serviceman, thereby assuming responsibility.
- The MoD, through the duty officer, was found negligent by failing to provide adequate supervision and not summoning medical assistance after assuming care.
- Damages to the claimant were reduced by two-thirds to reflect the contributory negligence of the deceased serviceman.
Legal Principles
- A general employer-employee relationship does not create a duty to prevent adults from self-inflicted harm, especially through intoxication.
- A duty of care may arise via assumption of responsibility, where a party takes positive steps to care for someone who is incapacitated.
- The distinction between liability for positive acts (misfeasance) and omissions (nonfeasance) is essential; the latter may only give rise to liability where responsibility is assumed.
- Contributory negligence can reduce damages where the injured party’s own actions contributed to their harm.
- Public policy considerations limit broad duties to prevent self-harm to preserve individual responsibility and prevent undue liability.
Conclusion
Barrett v Ministry of Defence establishes that, while employers do not owe a general duty to prevent employees’ self-harm, a specific duty arises upon assuming responsibility for their care, and contributory negligence may significantly reduce damages in such cases.
