Also Known as: Kent v Griffiths (No. 3)
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment Date: 3 February 2000
Where Reported: [2001] Q.B. 36; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1158; [2000] 2 All E.R. 474
Legal Issue in Kent v Griffiths
The case of Kent v Griffiths focused on the determination of whether the London Ambulance Service (LAS) owed a duty of care to an individual who suffered harm due to the delayed response of the ambulance.
The central legal issue in Kent v Griffiths revolved around the existence of a duty of care owed by the LAS to the claimant in the specific circumstances of the case.
Material Facts in Kent v Griffiths
The claimant, Kent, experienced an asthma attack and called for an ambulance. The ambulance was significantly delayed, and as a result, Kent suffered a respiratory arrest, leading to further harm.
The claimant argued that the LAS owed a duty of care to provide timely and adequate medical assistance, and the failure to do so resulted in additional harm.
The case involved an examination of the duty of care owed by the LAS to individuals in need of emergency medical assistance and the consequences of a delayed response in such situations.
Judgment in Kent v Griffiths
The Court of Appeal considered the duty of care owed by the LAS in the context of emergency medical services. The court found that the LAS did owe a duty of care to the claimant, and the delayed response constituted a breach of this duty.
The judgment overturned the decision of the lower court and established the LAS’s liability for the harm caused by the delayed ambulance response.
The Reason for the Decision in Kent v Griffiths
The court’s decision was based on the recognition of a duty of care owed by the LAS to individuals in need of emergency medical assistance.
The court emphasised that the LAS, as a provider of emergency medical services, had a duty to respond promptly and adequately to calls for assistance. The delayed response in this case was deemed to be a breach of this duty, leading to the harm suffered by the claimant.
The court rejected arguments that sought to exclude the duty of care based on factors such as the nature of the service provided and the potential impact on the LAS’s operations.
The decision underscored the importance of the LAS’s duty to provide timely and effective emergency medical assistance, particularly in situations where individuals’ health and well-being are at risk.
The court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the ambulance service was regarded as part of the health service, where a duty of care to patients normally existed, rather than as providing services equivalent to those rendered by the police or the fire service when responding to a 999 telephone call.
The court emphasised that the LAS had accepted the request to provide an ambulance and had a specific responsibility to the claimant, making it foreseeable that she would suffer further injuries if the arrival of the ambulance was delayed.
The court found that there were no circumstances that made it unfair, unreasonable, or unjust for a duty of care to exist following the acceptance of the 999 call, and there was no reason why there should not be liability when the arrival of the ambulance was delayed for no good reason.
Legal Principles in Kent v Griffiths
The case of Kent v Griffiths established the legal principle that emergency medical service providers, such as the LAS, owe a duty of care to individuals in need of urgent medical assistance.
This duty encompasses the obligation to respond promptly and adequately to calls for assistance, with the aim of preventing further harm to the individuals in distress.
The decision emphasised the significance of the duty of care in the context of emergency medical services and highlighted the legal responsibility of service providers to prioritise the well-being of individuals requiring urgent medical attention.
The case set a precedent for the recognition of the duty of care owed by emergency medical service providers and underscored the importance of timely and effective response in emergency situations to prevent additional harm to those in need of medical assistance
