Advising Yonny - created from Mind Map

Seite 1

1) Who is the Claimant and Defendant?

2) In what tort?

3) What act of the Defendant and 4) Damage to Claimant

Yonny (Claimant) potentially has a strong case against the ambulance service (Defendant) and can raise a tort claim against them

2 points should be noted here

Yonny can bring a claim against the ambulance even though he was not the one who made that call as per the similar facts in the case of Kent v Griffiths where the call was made on behalf of the Claimant by her doctor and husband.

Abigail cannot bring a joint claim with Yonny against the ambulance service because her injuries was sustained after her call to the ambulance about Yonny therefore she couldn't be said to have relied on the statements of the ambulance. Regardless of the fact that she sustained injuries and her symptoms were made worse off, there was not enough foreseeability or proximity and it would not be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care between the ambulance service and herself. These 3 stages need to be met as per Lord Bridge's judgment in the case of Caparo.

Negligence

Firstly, Yonny must establish that he has suffered a recognised form of actionable damage. In this case physical harm as expressed by the Limitation Act 1980 s.38(1) which defines personal injury as 'any disease or impairment of person's physical condition' this is supported further by the Rothwell which set that the physical harm must meet the 'de minimis non curat lex' rule. Stating that the harm must be beyond trivial and not neutral. In this case the minor brain damage is 'harm' that is beyond de minimis and hence likely to satisfy this stage - Lord Hope stated that 'damages are given for injuries that cause harm' which is present in this case.

Secondly, we must consider the existence of a duty of care in this case by satisfying 3 stages under the Caparo test.

Thirdly, It is likely that when a duty of care is established there would be a breach of that duty by the ambulance service not clarifying that they were busy and instead falsely stating that they are on the way and that they should 'remain inside' because it is that statement that has led Abigail and Yonny to rely on them and not take alternative actions.

Fourthly, causation would also need to be established in order to bring a full claim for the tort of negligence. This would be by satisfying whether ambulances breach of duty caused Yonny's damage.

1) According to Kent v Griffiths and upon similar facts to this case, the ambulance called on behalf of as asthmatic person and ambulance delay caused them to suffer personal injury and physical harm. Likewise Yonny suffered minor brain damage as a result of light headedness and headache. Kent v Griffiths (K v G) established that a duty existed between the ambulance and person to whom they dispatched an ambulance for by applying Kent's facts to Caparo test and clarifying point on proximity. Firstly, like K v G the injuries were stated to the ambulance, and in our case the injuries were stated to the ambulance by Abigail - hence it is fair to state that Yonny's injuries were known and it would be reasonably foreseeable that Yonny would be at risk of harm by ambulance's actions. The ambulance service clearly arrived late and told them to 'stay inside' which was the reason for further harm to Yonny this is reasonably foreseeable to have caused harm to Yonny.

2) Yonny and the ambulance are likely to be found to be in close proximity. In K v G, it was expressed that because only a 'single individual was involved who made a specific request that was accepted and therefore relied on' that there existed enough proximity because of that 'specific reliance' established. Likewise, Yonny was the one with injuries that the call was made in relation to. Rhia informed Abigail that an 'ambulance is on its way' meaning an available ambulance (like that in K v G) has been sent to provide treatment for the a known person in response to a known request. Proximity is likely to be satisfied for Yonny. It has been said in K v G that 'since the injuries had been communitcated, the ambulance service accepted the call and requested the supply of ambulance - proximity was established'.

3) It is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty in this case because of the nature of the service provided by the ambulance which is akin to that of medical services and the NHS and not that of police and fire fighters who provide a general duty to members of the public. Health services as established by Darnley case suggests that even a receptionist at the NHS owes a duty of care to an incoming patient to give them correct information. Moreover, in this case, the nature of damage also substantiates the existence of a fair, just and reasonable duty of care. This is because the ambulance, in being late without expressing their busy schedule, was responsible for the additional damage that Yonny sustained. Lord Woolf expressed that 'ambulance services are under at least under a public law duty - and that they are paid out of public money to provide that service and it is inappropriate to regard otherwise'.

His ambulance also conceded that the claimants injury were foreseeable in K v G too and are therefore likely to maintain that stance here as well.

In K v G it was held that 'acceptance of the call established the duty of care' but in the ambulance service in this case firstly confirms to Abigail that the 'ambulance is on the way' which suggests that they have been dispatched and further develops that assumption of responsibility and reliance between the 'patient' Yonny and Ambulance service. Further, her instructions being a call handler just like the receptionist in Darnley for a medial service provider still means she has a responsibility for the statements she gives. Her stating that 'everyone should stay inside the venue' means they should not take alternative actions such as Abigail transporting Yonny directly there.

K v G established that 'there is a duty of care and proximity when a person who foreseeably would suffer further injuries by a delay when there was no reason why it should not be provided'. Here even though there was a reason for the delay because all ambulances were out, this was not communicated to Abigail and was with held and hence the negligence in doing so is considered misinforming like that in Darnley (by stating the wait is 4-5 hours instead of 30 minutes) the reliance on such a statement meant no alternative action which could have been taken, was taken by Abigail to help Yonny. Overall, the ambulance failed to protect and that their delay caused Yonny's minor brain damage which was an additional damage to the existing injuries. The key here is that if more and clear information were given about the ambulance arrival time, other alternatives would have been taken. Hence Yonny is likely to win in his claim against the ambulance as he satisfies all the criterions and stage.

Although it is not reasonable to expect the call handler to predict that more damage will result, it is still negligently misinforming them because she had expert knowledge that Abigail and Yonny did not have about the fact that 'it was a busy night for the ambulance' and that all ambulance were out on other calls'. Had she mentioned those statements to Abigail alternative actions could have been taken. The Ambulance act of telling Abigail that ambulance is on the way means 'acceptance of responsibility took place' as per K v G.