Introduction
The concept of duty of care lies at the heart of tort law, serving as a fundamental threshold for establishing liability in negligence claims. Historically, courts have grappled with balancing legal principles and policy considerations when determining whether a duty of care is owed, often invoking floodgates arguments or policy-driven reasoning to limit liability in complex areas such as pure economic loss and psychiatric injury. The decision in *Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police* [2018] UKSC 4 marked a significant shift, with the Supreme Court emphasising that policy-based reasoning should not guide decisions on duty of care. This essay critically examines the assertion that this development is welcome, focusing on two key aspects: first, the role of floodgates considerations in claims for pure economic loss and psychiatric injury, and second, the treatment of non-feasance as a straightforward issue warranting a consistent ‘no duty owed’ response. By exploring these dimensions, this discussion aims to evaluate the implications of moving away from policy-driven approaches in negligence law, arguing that while this shift offers clarity, it may oversimplify complex legal challenges.
The Role of Floodgates Considerations in Pure Economic Loss and Psychiatric Injury
One of the primary justifications for welcoming the approach in *Robinson* is the historical reliance on floodgates considerations in limiting claims for pure economic loss and psychiatric injury. The floodgates argument, rooted in the fear of indeterminate liability, has long influenced judicial decision-making in negligence. In claims for pure economic loss, courts have historically been cautious, fearing that recognising a duty of care could open the door to an overwhelming number of claims. The landmark case of *Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd* [1964] AC 465 established that a duty could arise in specific circumstances, such as where a special relationship of reliance exists. However, subsequent cases, including *Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd* [1973] QB 27, reaffirmed the courts’ reluctance to expand liability, often citing policy concerns about the potential economic burden on defendants.
Similarly, in the realm of psychiatric injury, floodgates considerations have played a pivotal role in shaping legal principles. The case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 set stringent criteria for recovery, requiring claimants to demonstrate proximity in time and space to the traumatic event, among other factors. This restrictive approach was explicitly justified by the judiciary’s concern over an influx of claims that could strain judicial resources and impose excessive liability on defendants (Herring, 2017). While these policy-driven restrictions arguably provided a necessary safeguard, they have often been criticised for lacking a coherent legal basis, instead relying on subjective notions of fairness or societal impact.
The Robinson ruling, by advocating a move away from such policy considerations, offers a more principled framework for determining duty of care. By focusing on established legal tests, such as foreseeability and proximity, rather than speculative fears of floodgates, the decision encourages consistency and predictability in judicial outcomes. This is a welcome shift, as it addresses longstanding criticisms that policy-based reasoning often results in arbitrary or inconsistent decisions, particularly in areas as nuanced as economic loss and psychiatric harm.
Non-Feasance and the ‘No Duty Owed’ Principle
The second aspect of the statement under review concerns the treatment of non-feasance, or the failure to act, as a straightforward issue to which the answer ‘no duty owed’ should always apply. Non-feasance has long posed challenges in negligence law, as courts have been reluctant to impose duties to act, particularly where no pre-existing relationship or assumption of responsibility exists. The general rule, as articulated in *Stovin v Wise* [1996] AC 923, is that there is no duty to prevent harm through positive action unless specific circumstances, such as a statutory obligation or contractual duty, dictate otherwise. This principle is grounded in the notion of individual autonomy and the avoidance of undue burdens on citizens to act as rescuers or protectors.
The Robinson case reinforces this traditional stance by cautioning against the use of policy to expand duties in cases of omission. Lord Reed, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that the determination of duty should rest on legal principles rather than broader societal or moral considerations. In this context, the assertion that non-feasance merits a straightforward ‘no duty owed’ response aligns with the desire for clarity and legal certainty. For instance, in public authority negligence claims, such as those involving police failures to act, the courts have consistently resisted imposing duties unless exceptional circumstances apply, as seen in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53. This approach arguably prevents the overextension of liability and preserves the distinction between moral and legal obligations.
However, while the clarity offered by a strict ‘no duty’ rule in non-feasance cases is appealing, it may oversimplify the complexities inherent in certain scenarios. Cases involving vulnerable individuals or clear foreseeability of harm, such as failures by public bodies to protect children from abuse (D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373), highlight the limitations of a rigid approach. A blanket rejection of duty in non-feasance cases risks undermining justice in situations where a compelling case for liability exists. Thus, while the move away from policy-based reasoning in Robinson provides a more structured framework, it must be applied with nuance to avoid unjust outcomes.
Critical Evaluation of the Shift Away from Policy-Based Reasoning
The broader implications of the *Robinson* decision merit careful consideration. On one hand, the rejection of policy-based reasoning addresses significant criticisms of judicial arbitrariness, particularly in areas like pure economic loss and psychiatric injury, where floodgates fears have often dictated outcomes over legal principle. By grounding decisions in established tests of duty, courts can enhance transparency and predictability, ensuring that claimants and defendants alike understand the legal standards at play (Lunney and Oliphant, 2017). Furthermore, in the context of non-feasance, a clear ‘no duty’ stance aligns with longstanding principles of tort law, reinforcing the importance of personal responsibility over expansive legal obligations.
On the other hand, the complete exclusion of policy considerations raises concerns about the courts’ ability to adapt to emerging social and economic challenges. Policy, though sometimes vague or inconsistently applied, has historically allowed judges to balance competing interests and respond to societal needs. Without it, there is a risk that the law becomes overly rigid, failing to account for unique circumstances or evolving norms. Therefore, while the direction set by Robinson is largely welcome, it should not be seen as a blanket prohibition on policy but rather as a call for greater restraint and justification when such considerations are invoked.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s stance in *Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police* represents a significant and generally positive development in the law of negligence by discouraging recourse to policy-based reasoning in duty of care decisions. This shift addresses historical overreliance on floodgates arguments in claims for pure economic loss and psychiatric injury, fostering a more principled and predictable approach to liability. Similarly, the reinforcement of a ‘no duty owed’ stance in non-feasance cases provides clarity, though it risks oversimplifying complex scenarios where justice might demand a duty to act. While the move away from policy offers substantial benefits in terms of legal coherence, it must be tempered with flexibility to ensure that the law remains responsive to societal needs. Ultimately, the *Robinson* decision marks a step towards a more robust framework for determining duty of care, but its application will require ongoing judicial vigilance to balance principle with fairness.
References
- Herring, J. (2017) Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 8th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Lunney, M. and Oliphant, K. (2017) Tort Law: Text and Materials. 6th edn. Oxford University Press.
[Word Count: 1023, including references]
