Order #348305 Topic: [Revision] Tort Law - MOOT on duty of care

Summative Moot

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Wentworth v Chief Constable of Greater Franchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

Virgil Wentworth was a physically disabled 40-year-old man living on his own in a council house at no. 49 Station Park Road in Greater Franchester. He was a heavy smoker.

In October 2012, having failed to persuade him to quit smoking or at least to smoke outdoors, his social worker informed him that she had contacted Greater Franchester Fire Service requesting a home fire safety and risk assessment on the basis of his smoking and his physical disability. The visit and assessment were duly carried out and installation of smoke and heat detectors and alarms approved.

On 5 ​th ​November 2012, the Greater Franchester Fire Authority, having misread the instructions attended and fitted alarms and detectors at no. 99 Station Park Road instead of No. 49.

On 28 November 2012, Mr Wenthworth’s house caught fire. Neighbours, alerted to the blaze, called emergency services. Unfortunately, despite responding immediately to the call and being at the scene within minutes, the Greater Franchester Fire Authority were unable to save Mr Wentworth from the effects of smoke inhalation.

An inquiry into the events identified that had Greater Franchester Fire Authority installed the smoke detectors at the correct address, the alarms would have sounded well before

the fire had taken hold and Virgil Wentworth would, in all likelihood, have had the time to leave the property. The inquiry also revealed that the fire had been started by lit fireworks being pushed through the letterbox of No. 49.

Virgil Wentworth’s parents claim that the Defendants were negligent due to their failure to attend the relevant property having received relevant information. They claim such incompetent handling and failure to respond to the risk they had identified at the property caused the death of Virgil. The Defendant have denied that they owe a duty of care to Virgil Wentworth (or his parents) or any member of the public in this situation.

In the High Court of Justice in 2014 i ​​t was held that a duty of care was owed by the defendants to the claimant on the following ground:

The damage suffered by Virgil Wentworth was foreseeable, there was a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties and it would be just fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the Defendant.

In the Court of Appeal ​​the decision of the lower court and the reasons for that decision were upheld, on the basis of what the Court of Appeal considered was a novel situation.

The defendants now appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that:

1. The case does not involve a novel set of facts and therefore an incremental approach should be adopted and such incremental approach does not support the existence of a duty of care.

2. There was no proximity between the parties. 3. In any event, it would not be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in

the circumstances.

You should refer to the following authorities:

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605

Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council and others [1997] QB

1004 Michael and others v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015]

UKSC 2 Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018]

UKSC 4

You do not have to refer to all the above authorities in your submission. However, you may be asked a question on an authority to which you do not refer and it is therefore essential to be able to demonstrate in-depth knowledge and understanding of all of the cases.

You will be allocated the role of either appellant or respondent.

You may NOT refer to any other cases.

It is not necessary to discuss any statutory provisions relating to the Fire Service.