Prisoners escaped from a rehabilitation program on an island.

Dorset yacht v home office 1970. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd 1970Some young offenders were doing some supervised work on Brown Sea Island under the Borstal regime. Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd 1970 AC 1004 House of Lords Some young offenders were doing some supervised work on Brown Sea Island under the Borstal regime.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages against the Home Office which was in control of the bostrals on grounds that the officers on the island were negligent as they failed to. Home Office 1953 2 All ER. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co.

HL 6 May 1970. Any duty of a borstal officer to use reasonable care to prevent a borstal trainee from escaping. Home Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co 1970 AC 1004 Key point A duty of care can arise for intentional acts by a third party within the control of the defendant Lord Pearsons judgment.

A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. 3 Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged a boat. Seven of the young offenders were able to escape that night they proceeded to steal a yacht which ended up colliding and damaging another yatch.

The Queens Bench held that the Home Office did owe a duty of care to the claimant. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd 1970. Under the supervision of three officers several Borstal boys who were working on the island where the plaintiffs yacht was moored damages the plaintiffs yacht.

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd 1970 AC. It is a House of Lords decision on negligence and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the United Kingdom by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd 1970 UKHL 2 1970 AC 1004 is a leading case in English tort law.