Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council
A local authority was vicariously liable for abuse of a child by foster parents with whom it had placed her, because the foster parents were integrated into its child care activities.
Facts
Ms Armes was taken into the care of Nottinghamshire County Council as a child, and the council placed her with two sets of foster parents. She was physically and emotionally abused by one foster mother and sexually abused by the other foster father. She sued the council, arguing that it was in breach of a non delegable duty to her, or vicariously liable for the foster parents' abuse.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the council was vicariously liable, although it had no non delegable duty. Lord Reed said that the foster parents were not carrying on an independent business of their own, but provided care to the child as an integral part of the council's organisation of its child care services. The council exercised a significant degree of control over the foster parents, and the placement created a relationship of authority and trust in which the risk of abuse arose. Lord Hughes dissented.
Related cases on employers' liability and vicarious liability
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 973
- Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509
- Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, [2016] AC 660
- Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48, [2003] 2 AC 366
- Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 705
- Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) 1 H & C 526
- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215
- Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2007] 1 AC 224
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
