The Home Office v The Dorset Yacht Company, 1970 UKHL 2, 1970] AC 1004
Citation:The Home Office v The Dorset Yacht Company, 1970 UKHL 2, 1970] AC 1004
Rule of thumb 1:What is meant by deductive and inductive reasoning? Deductive reasoning is when a legal provision is in point and inductive reasoning is when a legal provision has similar characteristics without being exactly in point. Either can be applied to win a legal argument – deductive must be applied, and inductive should be applied.
Rule of thumb 2:Does the duty of care and neighbourhood principle include property damage caused by breach of duty by a third party? Yes it does.
Background facts:
The basic facts were that a borstal home negligently let young offenders escape from the vicinity of the young offenders’ institution, the Dorset Yacht was right next to this – the boys then stole the boat to escape and damaged it and they sought damages for the Home Office for this. The property owner sought damages from the Home Office for the property damage done to the boat.
This is a landmark case and really has to be broken down into 2 separate parts.
Judgment part 1
This case is the classic case on deductive and inductive. It was explained that a case can generally be broken down into 4 key characteristics. If all 4 of these are the same, then this case applies and it is deductive. If 2 characteristics apply it still applies but it is inductive. If there are 3 then it is borderline. If there are no similar characteristics it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Deductive reasoning is when there is a point of law which is almost exactly in point and binding on the Court, and inductive reasoning is when there is no point of law which is exactly in point but the thrust of all the points of law together suggest that the law has been breached.
Judgment part 2
The Court held that the pursuer plaintiff was successful and the Home Office was liable for the damages to the boat. There is a general duty of skill and care, and it was very much reasonably foreseeable that the borstal boys would steal the boat and damage it. It applied inductive reasoning to extend the duty of care principle/doctrine into this area.
Ratio-decidendi:
Part 1
“The method adopted at this stage of the process is analytical and inductive. It starts with an analysis of the characteristics of the conduct and relationship involved in each of the decided cases. But the analyst must know what he is looking for; and this involves his approaching his analysis with some general conception of conduct and relationships which ought to give rise to a duty of care. This analysis leads to a proposition which can be stated in the form: "In all the decisions that have been analysed a duty of care has been held to exist wherever the conduct and the relationship possessed each of the characteristics A, B, C, D, etc., and has not so far been found to exist when any of these characteristics were absent ". For the second stage, which is deductive and analytical, that proposition is converted to : " In all cases where the conduct and relationship possess each of the characteristics A, B. C, D, etc. a duty of care arises." The conduct and relationship involved in the case for decision is then analysed to ascertain whether they possess each of these characteristics. If they do the conclusion follows that a duty of care does arise in the case for decision. But since ex hypothesi the kind of case which we are now considering offers a choice whether or not to extend the kinds of conduct or relationships which give rise to a duty of care, the conduct or relationship which is involved in it will lack at least one of the characteristics A, B, C or D, etc. And the choice is exercised by making a policy decision as to whether or not a duty of care ought to exist if the characteristic which is lacking were absent or redefined in terms broad enough to include the case under consideration. The policy decision will be influenced by the same general conception of what ought to give rise to a duty of care as was used in approaching the analysis. The choice to extend is given effect to by redefining the characteristics in more general terms so as to exclude the necessity to conform to limitations imposed by the former definition which are considered to be inessential. The cases which are landmarks in the common law, such as Nickbarrow v. Mason, Rylands v. Fletcher, Indermaur v. Dames, Donoghue v. Stevenson, to mention but a few, are instances of cases where the cumulative experience of judges has led to a restatement in wide general terms of characteristics of conduct and relationships which give rise to legal liability. Inherent in this methodology, however, is a practical limitation which is imposed by the sheer volume of reported cases. The initial selection of previous cases to be analysed will itself eliminate from the analysis those in which the conduct or relationship involved possessed characteristics which are obviously absent in the case for decision. The proposition used in the deductive stage is not a true universal. It needs to be qualified so as to read: — " In all cases where the conduct and relationship possess each of the " characteristics A, B, C and D. etc. but do not possess any of the " characteristics Z, Y or X etc. which were present in the cases eliminated " from the anaysis, a duty of care arises ". But this qualification, being irrelevant to the decision of the particular case, is generally left unexpressed’. Lord Diplock, at 28-29
Part 2
‘there must come a stage when the discretion is exercised so carelessly or unreasonably that there has been no real exercise of the discretion which Parliament has conferred. The person purporting to exercise his discretion has acted in abuse or excess of his power. Parliament cannot be supposed to have granted immunity to persons who do that ...the well-known passage in Lord Atkin's speech should I think be regarded as a statement of principle. It is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. But I think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion... the taking by the trainees of a nearby yacht and the causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to the respondents ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control or supervision; in the particular circumstances the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to the respondents... In later years there has been a steady trend towards regarding the law of negligence as depending on principle so that, when a new point emerges, one should ask not whether it is covered by authority but whether recognised principles apply to it’. Lord Reid
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.