Kent v Griffiths is a landmark English tort law case decided by the Court of Appeal in 2000 that clarified the duty of care owed by emergency services, specifically the ambulance service, in negligence claims. The case stands out because it departs from the established principle that emergency services such as the police, fire brigade, and coastguard generally do not owe a duty of care to individuals relying on their services.
The ruling in Kent v Griffiths recognised that ambulance services, unlike other emergency responders, do owe a duty of care to patients once an ambulance is dispatched. This case is frequently cited when considering negligence and public policy concerning emergency medical services.
Facts of Kent v Griffiths
The claimant in Kent v Griffiths was a pregnant woman suffering from asthma. Due to a severe asthma attack, her general practitioner (GP) called the London Ambulance Service (LAS) by dialling 999 to request immediate ambulance assistance to transport the claimant to hospital. Despite the urgency, the ambulance took 38 minutes to arrive at her residence.
This delay resulted in serious medical consequences for the claimant. She suffered a respiratory arrest, which led to significant injuries, including substantial memory impairment, a change in personality, and miscarriage. These injuries formed the basis of her claim for damages against the LAS, alleging negligence in failing to respond promptly and in the continuous provision of oxygen once the ambulance had arrived.
The LAS accepted liability at first instance, with the court finding that they owed a duty of care to the claimant as an individual patient. However, the LAS appealed the decision, arguing that, like other emergency services such as the police and fire brigade, they did not owe a common law duty of care to the public at large and, by extension, to individual patients.
Legal Issues
The Court of Appeal in Kent v Griffiths was tasked with addressing two primary legal questions:
- Does the ambulance service owe a duty of care to the public at large, or more specifically, to individual patients who call for assistance?
- Are there public policy reasons that preclude the ambulance service from owing such a duty of care, as has been held for other emergency services such as the police and fire brigade?
Legal Principles and Background
Prior to Kent v Griffiths, the established common law position, as set out in cases such as Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, was that emergency services including the police, fire brigade, and coastguard generally did not owe a duty of care in negligence to individual members of the public when responding to emergency calls. The rationale behind this was primarily grounded in public policy considerations: imposing such a duty could lead to defensive practices, divert resources from emergency responses to defending legal claims, and hamper the effective functioning of emergency services.
Previous cases further clarified this position by holding that police and fire services did not owe such a duty to individuals calling for help:
- Alexandrou v Oxford (police)
- Oll v Secretary of State for Transport (police)
- Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council (fire brigade)
Against this backdrop, the Court of Appeal in Kent v Griffiths was asked to decide whether these principles should extend to ambulance services, or whether the ambulance service should be treated differently.
Kent v Griffiths Judgement
The Court of Appeal dismissed the LAS’s appeal, affirming the existence of a duty of care owed by the ambulance service to the claimant. The judgement in Kent v Griffiths rests on several key legal findings:
Duty of Care Owed by Ambulance Services
The court held that the ambulance service does indeed owe a duty of care to individual patients once an ambulance has been dispatched following a 999 call. This duty arises because it was “reasonably foreseeable” that the claimant would suffer further harm if the ambulance did not arrive promptly.
Unlike the police or fire brigade, the ambulance service forms part of the healthcare service, which ordinarily owes a duty of care to patients. The claimant and the LAS were found to be in “sufficient proximity” once the LAS accepted the call and dispatched the ambulance. Therefore, a specific duty of care was established between the parties.
Breach of Duty
The court found that the LAS had breached this duty by failing to arrive within a reasonable time and without offering any satisfactory explanation for the delay. Given the claimant’s medical condition, the delay in ambulance arrival was unreasonable and constituted a breach of the duty of care.
Fair, Just and Reasonable to Impose Duty
The court also considered whether it was “fair, just and reasonable” to impose such a duty of care on the ambulance service. It was held that public policy did not preclude this duty. In fact, the court distinguished the ambulance service from other emergency services based on the nature of their work: ambulances deal directly with individual patients in need of immediate medical care rather than a general public protection role.
Public Policy Considerations
The LAS had contended that recognising a duty of care would lead to excessive litigation and divert resources from providing emergency services. However, the court rejected these arguments, concluding that the health service’s duty to individual patients justified a different approach.
Moreover, the court emphasised that while a duty of care was owed once an ambulance was dispatched, no such duty arose merely by answering a 999 call or refusing to respond to it. This distinction aimed to balance the ambulance service’s operational constraints with patient protection.
Obiter Dicta and Further Observations
In Kent v Griffiths, the court offered additional observations (obiter dicta) that have shaped the understanding of ambulance liability:
- The ambulance service would not owe a duty of care simply for refusing to respond to a 999 call, although this refusal could amount to a breach of statutory duty.
- The claimant bears the burden of proving causation, i.e., that the ambulance delay directly caused the worsening of the medical condition. The court acknowledged that emergency circumstances might provide ambulance services with some protection against liability unless their conduct was clearly deficient.
- The judgement suggests a limited but significant exception to the general immunity enjoyed by emergency services in negligence claims.
Conclusion
In Kent v Griffiths, the Court of Appeal decisively affirmed that ambulance services owe a duty of care to individuals once an ambulance is dispatched following a 999 call. The case distinguished the ambulance service from other emergency responders such as police and fire brigades, largely on the basis of proximity and the healthcare context.
The claimant’s serious injuries due to the delayed ambulance response demonstrated breach and causation, leading to the LAS’s liability in negligence being upheld. Public policy considerations, often used to limit emergency services’ liability, were carefully balanced but ultimately did not preclude recognising this duty of care.
Kent v Griffiths remains a pivotal case in negligence law, emphasising the special position of ambulance services and reinforcing the principle that public services providing urgent medical assistance have specific legal responsibilities towards their patients.
