Legal Case Summary
Kent v Griffiths (No.3) [2000] 2 WLR 1158 [2001] QB 36; [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2000] EWCA Civ 3017; [2000] PIQR P57; [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 109; (2000) 97(7) LSG 41; (2000) 150 NLJ 195
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, EXISTENCE OF DUTY, AMBULANCE SERVICE, AMBULANCE FAILING TO ARRIVE ON TIME, NO EXPLANATION FOR DELAY
Facts
The plaintiff, Kent, was pregnant and had asthma. She was attended by her GP who dialled 999 and requested an ambulance to take the plaintiff to hospital. The ambulance took 38 minutes to arrive. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a respiratory arrest with grave consequences – substantial memory impairment, personality change and miscarriage. Kent brought and action against the London Ambulance Service (LAS) alleging negligence in failing to respond promptly and continuously give her oxygen in the ambulance. LAS was found liable in damages since they owed a duty of care to Kent as an individual patient. LAS appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds that similar to the police and the fire brigade, they did not owe a common law duty of care to the public at large.
Issues
(1) Do the ambulance service owe a duty of care to the public at large?
(2) Does public policy preclude the existence of duty of care on behalf of the ambulance service to the public at large?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Unlike the police and the fire brigade, the ambulance service is part of the healthcare service where a duty of care to patients normally exists.
(2) Public policy grounds do not preclude the existence of duty of care to the patients on behalf of the ambulance service.
(3) The ambulance had been called for the patient alone, there were no other circumstances justifying its delay and it was foreseeable that the claimant would suffer further injuries if the arrival of the ambulance was delayed. Therefore, there was no reason why there should be no liability.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Kent v Griffiths (No.3) [2001] QB 36, in which the Court of Appeal held that the London Ambulance Service owed a duty of care to an individual patient once an emergency call had been accepted, distinguishing the ambulance service from the police and fire brigade on the basis that it forms part of the National Health Service. The legal principles described remain good law.
The article is broadly accurate as a summary of this leading authority. Readers should note, however, that the broader landscape of public authority liability in negligence has continued to develop. In particular, the Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 clarified and restated the applicable principles for public authority negligence, affirming that liability generally depends on established Donoghue v Stevenson-type principles rather than the three-stage Caparo test as a universal framework. More significantly, the Supreme Court in N v Poole Borough Council [2019] UKSC 25 and subsequently HXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52 have further refined the principles concerning when public authorities may owe a duty of care, particularly distinguishing between failing to confer a benefit and assuming responsibility to an individual. These cases do not disturb the outcome in Kent v Griffiths, where an assumption of responsibility on the facts was clearly established once the call was accepted, but students should read this case in that broader evolving context.
