Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60 In Armes the UK Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal in [2015] EWCA Civ 1139 and decided that a local authority could be vicariously liable for torts committed by foster carers against children in local authority care. They also considered whether there could be the kind of non-delegable duty of care found in the case of Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66. Full Report Here.
JB AND BB V LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL NOTTINGHAM COUNTY COURT 6TH JUNE 2014 UNREPORTED The Claimants were sister who alleged serious sexual abuse by foster parents whilst in the care of the local authority in the 1960’s. They were born in 1957 and 1960. They were later adopted by the same foster parents. They claimed damaged against the local authority in negligence and for breach of non delegable duty of care, and on the basis of vicarious liability. Full report here.
NA V NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] EWHC 4005 (QB) The Claimant (who was born in 1977) made three claims against the defendant local authority: First, she says that while in her mother's care she suffered physical and emotional abuse by her mother and her mother's partner, that the defendant failed in the common law duty of care which it owed her by failing either to remove her from her mother's care at a young age or to put in place measures to protect her from the abuse which she suffered. Second, she said while in the foster care of Mr and Mrs A between March 1985 and March 1986 when she was aged 7 and 8, she suffered physical and emotional abuse by Mrs A for which the defendant is responsible in law.Full report here.
WOODLAND V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL [2013] EWHC 1711 (QB) The Claimant suffered severe hypoxic injuries whilst swimming in a pool run by the Fifth Defendant, Basildon Council. There was a life guard (the Third Defendant) and a swimming teacher (the Second Defendant), who was in turn a member of the Swimming Teachers’ Association (the First Defendant). The Second Defendant was an independent contractor to the Claimant’s school, which was run by the Fourth Defendant, Essex County Council. The Claimant asserted that Essex County Council (“Essex”) owed her a “non delegable duty of care in the capacity loco parentis” and that Essex was also vicariously liable for the negligence of both the Second Defendant, the swimming teacher and the lifeguard, the Third Defendant. Full report here.
WOODLAND V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL [2013] UKSC 66 The Claimant suffered severe hypoxic injuries whilst swimming in a pool run by the Fifth Defendant, Basildon Council. There was a life guard (the Third Defendant) and a swimming teacher (the Second Defendant), who was in turn a member of the Swimming Teachers’ Association (the First Defendant). The Second Defendant was an independent contractor to the Claimant’s school, which was run by the Fourth Defendant, Essex County Council. The Claimant asserted that Essex County Council (“Essex”) owed her a “non delegable duty of care in the capacity loco parentis” and that Essex was also vicariously liable for the negligence of both the Second Defendant, the swimming teacher and the lifeguard, the Third Defendant. Full report here.