Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence - 1996

320 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732;

[1996] 2 WLR 474; [1996] 2 All ER 758; [1996] PIQR P276; (1996) 146 NLJ 334

NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, SEVICEMEN, SOLDIER INJURED DURING SERVICE, BATTLE CONDITIONS, SAFETY AT WORK, PERSONAL INJURY

Facts

The plaintiff was a soldier serving for the British Army in the Gulf War and was part of the team manning a howitzer. His unit was deployed in Saudi Arabia to fire the howitzer into Iraq. The soldier was ordered by his commander to fetch some water from in front of the gun carriage. While he was in front of the gun, the commander negligently fired it. As a result, the plaintiff was knocked off his feet and his hearing was adversely affected. The plaintiff brought an action against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as his employer for damages for personal injury alleging that the department was vicariously liable for the gun commander’s negligence or alternatively, the department was in breach of its duty to provide safety at work by allowing the gun to be fired when the soldier was not the safety position required by the gun drill. The county court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The MoD appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

Do servicemen owe a duty of care to fellow servicemen in battle conditions?

Decision/Outcome

The appeal was allowed and the claim was struck out.

(1) Servicemen owe no duty of care to fellow serviceman in battle conditions since as a matter of public policy and common sense it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty on soldiers when engaging with the enemy during hostilities.

(2) This is the case even if the sufficient proximity of relationship to establish a duty of care and the foreseeability of damage are proved.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles