Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police clarifies how English courts determine duties of care. Established negligence principles ordinarily apply, and Caparo is not a universal test that must be satisfied afresh in every case.
Facts
Police officers planned to arrest a suspected drug dealer in a busy shopping street. They recognised that he might attempt to escape but proceeded when Mrs Robinson, a 76-year-old pedestrian, was nearby. The suspect resisted. During the struggle, the men collided with Mrs Robinson and knocked her to the ground beneath them, causing injury. A trial judge found that the officers had acted negligently but considered that authority gave the police immunity from liability for negligence committed while apprehending a suspect. The Court of Appeal also denied liability, reasoning in part that imposing a duty would not be fair, just and reasonable. Mrs Robinson appealed, arguing that the officers had positively created a foreseeable danger to her rather than merely failing to protect her from harm caused by someone else.
Legal Issue
Did the police owe an ordinary duty to avoid causing foreseeable physical injury during the arrest, and should the Caparo considerations be reapplied to that established situation?
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored liability. The police do not enjoy a general immunity from negligence claims. Under established principle, a person who performs a positive act must take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable physical injury to others. The officers' attempt to arrest the suspect created the danger that led directly to Mrs Robinson's injury, so this was not a case about liability for failing to prevent a third party from causing harm. Lord Reed explained that Caparo did not impose a three-stage test for every duty question. Courts should apply existing authorities and develop new duties incrementally by analogy. Public authorities are generally subject to the same private-law principles as others, although omissions and exercises of statutory powers may raise separate rules.
⭐ Legal Principle
The Caparo considerations are not a compulsory checklist for every negligence claim. Courts first apply established duty categories and reason incrementally in novel cases. Police and other public bodies generally owe the ordinary duty not to cause foreseeable physical injury through their positive acts.
Significance
Robinson corrects the widespread textbook habit of treating foreseeability, proximity and fairness as a universal duty formula. It also distinguishes operational negligence that causes injury from an omission to protect a claimant against criminals or other third parties. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire did not create blanket police immunity, while Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co illustrates liability where a public authority's conduct falls within established principles. Statutory powers do not automatically generate private-law duties, but neither do public functions automatically exclude them.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the police conduct in Robinson treated as a positive act rather than an omission?
The officers did more than fail to protect Mrs Robinson from the suspect. They chose to carry out an arrest beside her and their physical struggle with the suspect knocked her down. Their own operation created the immediate source of foreseeable injury. The ordinary duty to take reasonable care when acting therefore applied without needing a new duty based on responsibility for a third party.
What did Robinson say about the three considerations associated with Caparo?
They are relevant when courts consider a genuinely novel duty, but they are not a statutory-style test to be reapplied in every case. If precedent already establishes a duty category, the court should apply it. Where the law is uncertain, development should proceed incrementally and by analogy, with proximity and policy considered in that context.
Does Robinson mean that public authorities are liable for every failure to prevent harm?
No. Public bodies are generally governed by ordinary negligence principles, which distinguish causing harm from failing to confer a benefit or prevent harm caused by another. An omission usually requires an additional basis for responsibility, such as an assumption of responsibility or creation of the danger. Robinson concerned injury positively caused during an arrest, so it did not abolish the restrictions on omissions liability.