Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR 1217
[1995] 3 All ER 87; [1994] EWCA Civ 7
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEE’S DEATH,
INJURY CAUSED BY DRUNKENNESS, NAVAL REGULATIONS, SAFETY
Facts
The plaintiff was the widow of the deceased, who was a British naval army serviceman. He died of asphyxiation on his own vomit after becoming drunk and ending up in coma at a naval base in Norway. The deceased’s commanding officer was charged with negligence under Art. 1810 Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy 1967 which provided that it was the duty of officers to discourage drunkenness. The widow claimed damages against the defendant – the Ministry of Defence (MoD), under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. The Queen’s Bench held that the defendant had breached its duty to take measures to protect the deceased against his own weakness as it was foreseeable that he would succumb to intoxication. The damages awarded were reduced by 1/4 because of the deceased’s contributory negligence. The MoD appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.
Issue
Does Art. 1810 Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy 1967 impose a duty to ensure the safety of serviceman in naval bases when off duty?
Decision/Outcome
(1) Art. 1810 Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy 1967 does not lay down standards or give guidance on the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of servicemen when off duty. Hence, it cannot be invoked when deciding whether duty of care was owed and whether the defendant had breached it.
(2). Until the deceased collapsed, he was responsible for his own condition as it is reasonable to leave a responsible adult to assume responsibility for his own actions in consuming an alcoholic drink
(3) However, after the deceased collapsed and was no longer able to assume responsibility and thus, the defendant had to do this for him, the defendant’s actions fell short of the reasonably expected standards.
(4) As it was the deceased’s lack of self-control that caused the defendant to have to assume responsibility, the damages awarded were reduced by 2/3.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR 1217. The Court of Appeal’s findings — that no duty of care arose prior to the deceased’s collapse, that a duty was assumed once the defendant took control of the incapacitated serviceman, and that contributory negligence reduced damages — remain correctly stated as a matter of case law.
One factual point worth noting: the article states the damages were reduced by one quarter at first instance and by two thirds on appeal. The Court of Appeal’s reduction to one third of the total damages (i.e. a two-thirds reduction for contributory negligence) is correctly recorded in the Decision section, though the contrast with the first instance figure could be clearer to readers.
The broader legal principles from this case — particularly the limits of a duty of care in respect of self-induced intoxication and the concept of assumption of responsibility — remain good law and continue to be cited in discussions of negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. No subsequent legislation or appellate authority has overruled or materially qualified the decision. The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 referenced in the article remains in force, though it has been amended on various occasions since 1976 (most notably regarding bereavement damages). Those amendments do not affect the negligence principles discussed in this case summary.
