Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd is a landmark case in the law of negligence, concerning the liability of a public authority for damages caused by the negligent acts of its employees. The case established the principle that a public authority can be held liable for the negligence of its employees if the employee’s duties are sufficiently closely connected to the duties of the authority.

Case Background

In 1971, the Dorset Yacht Company owned and operated a yacht moored in Portland Harbour. The yacht was damaged by a large wave caused by a passing police launch. The wave was caused by the negligent steering of the launch by a police officer, who was an employee of the Home Office.

The Dorset Yacht Company brought a claim for damages against the Home Office, alleging that it was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. The Home Office argued that it was not liable, as the police officer’s actions were not sufficiently closely connected to his duties to hold the Home Office responsible.

The Law

The law of vicarious liability holds that an employer can be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees if the employee was acting in the course of their employment. To establish vicarious liability, the claimant must show that the employee’s wrongful act was sufficiently closely connected to their duties to hold the employer responsible.

The Case Decision of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd

The case was initially heard in the High Court, where the judge held that the Home Office was not vicariously liable for the actions of the police officer. The judge found that the officer’s actions were not sufficiently closely connected to his duties to hold the Home Office responsible.

However, the decision was overturned on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court held that the officer’s duties included the proper navigation of the police launch, and that his negligent steering was a breach of those duties. The court also held that the Home Office was sufficiently closely connected to the officer’s duties to hold it vicariously liable for his actions.

The Home Office appealed the decision to the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court). The House of Lords affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, holding that the Home Office was vicariously liable for the actions of the police officer.

The House of Lords held that the test for vicarious liability was whether the employee’s wrongful act was sufficiently closely connected to his duties to make it just to hold the employer responsible. The court stated that the question was not whether the employer authorized the employee’s actions or whether the actions were for the benefit of the employer, but whether the actions were so closely connected to the employee’s duties that they could be regarded as being within the scope of his employment.

The court held that the police officer was acting in the course of his employment when he negligently steered the police launch, and that his duties included the proper navigation of the launch. The court also held that the Home Office was sufficiently closely connected to the officer’s duties to hold it vicariously liable for his actions.

Significance of the Case

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd is significant because it established the principle that a public authority can be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees if the employee’s duties are sufficiently closely connected to the duties of the authority. This principle has been applied in a number of other cases involving public authorities, including cases involving the police, the NHS, and local authorities.

The case also highlighted the importance of ensuring that public authorities take reasonable care in the selection, training, and supervision of their employees. It emphasized the need for public authorities to ensure that their employees are competent and capable of carrying out their duties safely and responsibly.

Finally, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of the duty of care owed by all employers to their employees and to the public. The duty of care requires employers to take