Kent v Griffiths and Others (No 1); Kent v London Ambulance Service
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 2000 |
| Date | 03 February 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Aldous and Lord Justice Laws.
Duty of care - ambulance service - acceptance of 999 call creates duty
An ambulance service could be liable in negligence to a member of the public on whose behalf a 999 call had been made if, for no good reason, the ambulance sent to transport her to hospital failed to arrive within a reasonable time.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the third defendant, the London Ambulance Service, against the decision of Mr Justice Turner in the Queen's Bench Division on July 16, 1999 to order that it pay the claimant, Ms Tracey Kent, suing by her sister and litigation friend, Ms Jennifer Doughty, Pounds 362,377 damages.
In 1998, the Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal against the striking out of those parts of the statement of claim which alleged that the ambulance service was in breach of a duty of care (The Times December 23, 1998).
Mr James Munby, QC and Ms Mary O'Rourke for the ambulance service; Ms Elizabeth A. Gumbel, QC, for the claimant.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the issue was whether an ambulance service could owe any duty of care to a member of the public on whose behalf a 999 call was made if, due to carelessness, it failed to arrive within a reasonable time.
The background
On February 16, 1991 the claimant suffered an asthma attack. Dr Yvonne Griffiths attended at her home and, at 16.25, telephoned the ambulance service.
She gave the claimant's name address and age, indicated that she was suffering from bronchial asthma and asked for an ambulance to take her "immediately please" to casualty. The control replied: "OK doctor".
By 16.38 the ambulance had not arrived so the claimant's husband made a second call. The response was "Yes. They are well on their way to you… give them another seven or eight minutes".
At 16.54 the doctor made a third call as the ambulance had still not arrived. The response was "Well it should be a couple of minutes". The ambulance did not arrive until 17.05.
The record prepared by a member of the ambulance crew indicated that the time of arrival was 16.47. The judge found that there had been contemporary falsification of the records by the crew member.
The judge was not given any satisfactory explanation for the ambulance taking 34 minutes to travel 6.5 miles from its base to the claimant's home and he concluded that the delay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Burke) v General Medical Council
...... Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL (Transcript of the Handed ... the claimant will be entirely dependent on others for his care and indeed for his very survival. In ... summarised it in A National Health Service Trust v D [2000] 2 FLR 677 at p 695, ... As Lord Woolf MR said in Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36 at para [45]: ......
-
D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust and Another
...... Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL . Allan Levy QC and Scott Donovan ...In all these cases and many others the view has been taken that the proper ...Lord Woolf MR commented on this in Kent v Griffiths [2001] 1 QB 36 . He went on to ... working relationship between "social service departments, the police service, medical ......
- Aitken v Scottish Ambulance Service