Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36

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.