The case is also relevant because.

Dorset yacht v home office. Following Donoghue v Stevenson there was little development of the duty concept until it was suggested in Dorset Yacht v Home Office that a duty should exist whenever damage was foreseeable. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers. During their attempted escape they caused a.

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. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co 1970 AC 1004. The case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co 1970 concerns the decision on whether a person or a body can be liable for a third partys action if that party was under the supervision or control of such person or body.

The defendants had failed to prevent the escape an omission. The test for duty of care is described by Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman as a Some damage was foreseeable to a foreseeable claimant. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd.

During their escape they crashed into the claimants boat. Several of the young offenders then stole a boat and crashed it into the yacht of the Claimant. It was found the Home Office owed a duty of care as they.

3 Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged a boat. Judgement for the case Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. My lords On 21st September 1962 a party of Borstal trainees were working on1 Brownsea Island in Poole Harbour under the supervision and control ofthree Borstal officers.

Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office 1970 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. 1004 is a Tort Law case concerning negligence and duty of care.