Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] A.C. 1004
Facts
7 Borstal boys were working on an island under the control and supervision of three officers of D. 5 of them had known criminal records including convictions for breaking and entering, larceny, and taking away vehicles without the owner’s consent. After the officers had retired, the boys left the island one night and boarded, cast adrift and damaged C’s yacht, which was moored offshore. P brought an action for damages against the officers, arguing that they had failed to exercise effective control or supervision over the boys. D denied that they or their servants or agents owed C any duty of care with respect to the detention of the boys or to the manner in which they were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised. It was admitted that D would be vicariously liable if an action would lie against any of the officers.
Legal Issue
- Did D owe a duty to take reasonable care to avoid the Borstal boys causing damage to any property nearby?
Held
The House of Lords held, on the preliminary duty issue, that the alleged failure to supervise the trainees could support liability. The officers' control over them and the foreseeable risk to nearby yachts distinguished the case from a general complaint that the state should prevent crime. The Home Office's potential liability arose through the negligence of its officers, not an employment relationship with the trainees. The majority did not recognise an unlimited duty to all possible victims of escape. Nor did the preliminary ruling establish every element of liability or assess compensation. Those limits are essential when using the case as authority for duties concerning third parties.
⭐ Legal Principle
Where officers control detainees whose escape creates a foreseeable risk to nearby property, reasonable supervision may be owed to the affected owners. The basis is the officers' control and alleged negligence, not a general state guarantee against criminal damage.
Significance
This separate library record concerns the same Dorset Yacht decision as ID 288. Its legal value lies in explaining control-based responsibility and the limits of public-authority liability. The nearby yachts were exposed to an identifiable risk from the trainees under supervision. Hill and Robinson help distinguish that situation from general failures to investigate crime. Both existing URLs remain preserved; any later consolidation requires a separate editorial and search-traffic decision.
Common exam questions about this case
What supplied the special basis for protecting yacht owners?
The officers had custody and control of trainees close to boats which could foreseeably be used or damaged in an escape. The duty arose from that specific situation, not merely from the state's broad law-enforcement role. The proximity of the property helped define whom the duty protected.
Why is the scope of the protected class important?
A duty to nearby owners exposed to a particular escape risk is more confined than a duty to every person who might eventually suffer crime. Dorset Yacht does not establish the latter. A problem answer should identify the relevant danger, location and control before extending the reasoning to other claimants.
How does the case differ from Hill?
Hill concerned alleged failure to identify and apprehend an offender, without the same custody and immediate control. Dorset Yacht concerned people already entrusted to officers whose supervision could prevent a specific danger. That difference supports distinct duty conclusions without requiring either case to confer blanket public-authority immunity.