Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 All ER 474

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: Mrs. Kent suffered a severe asthma attack and her doctor called 999 for an ambulance. The London Ambulance Service (LAS) took forty minutes to arrive, by which time Mrs. Kent had suffered a respiratory arrest. Mrs. Kent sued the LAS for negligence, arguing that the delay in response had worsened her condition. The LAS contended that emergency services generally do not owe a duty of care to individuals relying on their services, citing prior cases involving police and fire brigades.

Issue: Whether the LAS owed a duty of care to Mrs. Kent regarding the timeliness of its response to her emergency call.

Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the decision in favor of Mrs. Kent, finding that the LAS did owe a duty of care. The court established that once the LAS accepted the emergency call and dispatched an ambulance, a specific duty of care arose to respond within a reasonable time. It was reasonably foreseeable that delays in the ambulance response could exacerbate Mrs. Kent's condition. The court reasoned that there was no compelling public policy reason to exclude the duty of care in this specific context.

Lord Woolf, delivering the leading judgment, distinguished ambulance services from other emergency services like police and fire brigades. He noted that ambulance services are part of the health service with a specific duty to provide care at the scene, unlike other emergency services concerned with broader public safety. He further clarified that while an ambulance service is not typically liable for failing to respond to a 999 call, once they have committed to respond, they must do so with reasonable promptness.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Woolf emphasized, "Once an ambulance service has accepted a call and dispatched an ambulance, it assumes a specific duty to respond within a reasonable time. The duty of care is thus established in this context."

💡 LevelUpLaw: Kent v Griffiths established that ambulance services owe a specific duty of care to respond to emergency calls within a reasonable time. This case represents an important exception to the general rule that emergency services do not owe a duty of care, emphasizing the need for timely assistance in critical situations. It clarifies that, unlike police and fire services, ambulance services have a duty rooted in their role within the health service, underscoring the balance between protecting emergency services from undue liability and ensuring they meet their essential responsibilities.