Kent v Griffiths [2000] 2 All ER 474 (CA)

Facts

Mrs Kent suffered a severe asthma attack and called her GP, who immediately requested an ambulance. The London Ambulance Service confirmed they would attend, but the ambulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time.

As a result, Mrs Kent suffered respiratory arrest, leading to severe physical and emotional distress. The case highlighted concerns about responsibility once emergency services accept a call.

---

Issue

Did the ambulance service owe Mrs Kent a duty of care once it accepted the emergency call?

---

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that the ambulance service did owe a duty of care. By accepting the call, they had undertaken a specific responsibility to respond promptly and avoid foreseeable harm.

---

Legal Principle

Emergency services generally do not owe a duty of care for failing to respond. However, once they assume responsibility for a particular call, they must act with reasonable care to avoid making the situation worse.

---

Importance

• Key case for assumption of responsibility.

• Clarifies proximity in Caparo analysis.

• Frequently cited in emergency service negligence claims.