Dunnage v Randall
A person suffering a mental illness is judged by the objective standard of a reasonable person, unless the illness completely eliminated his responsibility for his actions.
Facts
Mr Randall, who was suffering from an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic illness, doused himself in petrol and set himself on fire at his nephew's house. His nephew, Mr Dunnage, was badly burned trying to stop him, and Mr Randall died. Mr Dunnage sued Mr Randall's estate, which argued that he had not been negligent because his illness meant that he could not appreciate what he was doing.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the estate was liable. Rafferty LJ said that the standard of care is objective, and a defendant's mental illness does not reduce it, unless the illness entirely eliminated his responsibility for his conduct, so that his actions were not voluntary at all. Mr Randall's illness had impaired his judgment, but he had been able to act deliberately, so his conduct was judged against the standard of a reasonable person, which it clearly fell below.
Related cases on breach of duty
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
- Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
- Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
- Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448
- Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430
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.
