Barrett v Ministry Of Defence

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, widow of the deceased, and her son claimed damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and for the benefit of the deceased's estate under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, alleging negligence by the Defendant, the Ministry of Defence, in relation to the death of the deceased who was serving in the Royal Navy. The deceased died from asphyxiation caused by inhalation of vomit after excessive alcohol consumption during a naval training exercise at a shore base in northern Norway. The trial judge awarded damages but reduced them by 25% to reflect the deceased's contributory negligence. The Defendant appealed, challenging the finding of breach of duty and the apportionment of liability.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased to prevent him from consuming excessive alcohol to the point of unconsciousness.
2. Whether the disciplinary codes and Queen's Regulations imposed a duty of care analogous to safety regulations or guidance such as the Highway Code.
3. The appropriate apportionment of liability between the deceased and the Defendant for the death.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant argued that Queen's Regulations and standing orders are intended to maintain good order and discipline, not to impose a duty of care for safety off duty, especially regarding alcohol consumption.
• The Defendant contended that the deceased, as a responsible adult, was solely responsible for his decision to consume alcohol excessively and that it was neither just nor reasonable to impose a duty to protect him from his own actions.
• The Defendant challenged the trial judge’s comparison of military regulations to the Highway Code or factory safety pamphlets, asserting this was a misdirection.
• The Defendant accepted breach of duty only after it assumed responsibility for the deceased post-collapse, acknowledging inadequate care and supervision at that stage.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent sought an extension of the duty of care based on analogous relationships (e.g., employer-employee, occupier-visitor), emphasizing the Defendant's control over the environment and provision of duty free alcohol.
• It was argued that the Defendant had a duty to take reasonable care to prevent drunkenness to a level endangering safety or causing unconsciousness due to the foreseeable risk in the base environment.
• The Respondent cited Canadian cases where duties were imposed on providers of alcohol in contexts involving invitee/invitor relationships or additional factors beyond mere provision of alcohol.
• The Respondent contended that once the Defendant assumed responsibility for the deceased after collapse, it failed to provide adequate care, contributing to the death.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the nature and purpose of Queen's Regulations and standing orders, concluding they are designed to maintain discipline and good order, not to impose a duty of care for personal safety off duty. The trial judge erred in equating these regulations with safety guidance such as the Highway Code. The court considered the foreseeability of harm insufficient alone to establish a duty of care, referencing authoritative case law that requires incremental extension of duties based on analogous relationships and fairness.

The court rejected the imposition of a duty to prevent a responsible adult from self-induced intoxication to the point of unconsciousness, emphasizing personal responsibility. The Defendant’s failure to enforce regulations did not create a private law duty to protect the deceased from his own conduct.

However, the court accepted that once the Defendant assumed responsibility for the deceased after collapse, it owed a duty to provide reasonable care. The Defendant breached this duty by failing to summon medical assistance and providing inadequate supervision.

Regarding apportionment of liability, the court found the deceased’s fault was a continuing and direct cause of death, as his intoxication caused the condition leading to asphyxiation. The deceased’s actions compelled the Defendant to assume responsibility. The court concluded it was just and equitable to allocate a greater share of blame to the deceased than the Defendant, reversing the trial judge’s apportionment from 25% to one third liability for the Defendant.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was allowed.

The court set aside the prior judgment awarding damages of £160,651.16 and substituted a reduced award of £71,400.51 plus interest, reflecting a revised apportionment of liability with the Defendant held one third liable and the deceased two thirds liable for the death.

The decision clarifies that military disciplinary regulations do not impose a private law duty of care to protect responsible adults from self-inflicted intoxication off duty. It affirms the principle that foreseeability alone is insufficient to impose such a duty absent a special relationship. The ruling limits the extension of duty of care in negligence law regarding alcohol consumption by adults in controlled environments. No new precedent beyond this factual context was established.