Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158, EWCA
Citation: Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 WLR 1158, EWCA
Rule of thumb:If an ambulance/emergency services are significantly late to an emergency call with no explanation provided, can they be sued? As a general rule, yes, and if they are going to be significantly, they should also advise the person making the call so that they can take a taxi to A & E.
Judgment:
Mrs Kent took an asthma attack and called her doctor. The doctor called out to her home and called for an ambulance at 16.25 stating that there was an emergency. The ambulance was stationed 6 miles away and did not arrive until 17.05. Mrs Kent suffered a heart attack due to a lack of oxygen as her lungs had closed up and she was unable to breath. Two further calls enquiring where the ambulance was were placed and the operator stated that the ambulance was en route. The doctor stated if she had known of the delay of the ambulance she would have advised that Mrs Kent be driven to the hospital instead. The court held that where the ambulance services carry out conduct that there is absolutely no reason for justifying – no human error or legitimate mix-ups or lack of skill – then the emergency services will be made liable for damages for this.
‘The fact that it was the person who foreseeably would suffer further injuries by a delay in providing an ambulance when there was no reason why it should not be provided is important in establishing the necessary proximity and thus duty of care in this case. In other words as there were no circumstances which made it unfair or unreasonable or unjust that liability should exist there is no reason why there should not be liability if the arrival of the ambulance was delayed for no good reason. The acceptance of the call in this case established the duty of care. On the findings of the Judge it was delay which caused the further injuries. If wrong information had not been given about the arrival of the ambulance other means of transport could have been used” Lord Woolf at 1152
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.