The appeal by the Home Office was dismissed.

Dorset yacht v home office two stage test. It was found the Home Office owed a duty of care as they. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers. Seven of them escaped and stole a boat which collided with a Yacht owned by the claimant.

Iaw Public Law in Disguise 1959 38. APPLICATIONS FORMS PERMITS. Act of the Claimant A subsequent act of the claimant will break the chain of causation if it is very unreasonable.

1 The bostral officers owe a duty to take such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances with the view of preventing the persons under their control from causing damage if there is a manifest risk if this duty is neglected. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd. Borstal officers were required to supervise young offenders who were working on Brown Sea Island however the officers left the boys unsupervised.

A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. Third Party Intervention Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd 1970 HL pg245 Facts. 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.

Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council 1958 1 WLR 623. Home Ofice l2 and in con- sidering whether the Home Ofice owes a duty of care for damage lcgal doctrine when there are undcrstandable policy considerations at hand. 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.

2 Public policy does not require that there should be immunity from action for bostral officers. Plant Operators Job Description. Home Office 1953 2 All ER.