ADAMS AND ANOR v RHYMNEY VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL

A person or body owing a duty requiring professional judgment must exercise the relevant skill with reasonable care. The Bolam approach may apply where the defendant exercises or professes to exercise a particular skill, even if the defendant lacks formal qualifications. Liability does not arise merely because the defendant failed to deliberate between two courses which competent practitioners could reasonably adopt. The question is whether the course adopted fell outside the range of reasonable professional practice and caused the damage. A common practice may provide a defence where it is reasonable and in common use.

The claimants were tenants of a council house in which replacement upstairs windows had been fitted with removable-key locks. During a fire, the keys were unavailable and the claimants’ children died; Mrs Adams suffered serious injuries while attempting to escape.

Thomas J, determining liability only, held that the council had not breached its duty of care. The claimants appealed, arguing that the council had failed to consider the competing risks of fire escape, child safety and security, and that the window design was negligent. The central issue was whether the council’s failure to make a conscious design choice, before installing a commonly used type of lock, constituted negligence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal, by a majority comprising Morritt LJ and Sir Christopher Staughton, upheld Thomas J’s conclusion that the council was not in breach of duty. Sedley LJ dissented and would have allowed the appeal.
2. The council owed a duty to take reasonable care in designing and installing the windows so that occupants were reasonably safe from personal injury. The applicable standard was informed by the nature of the skill involved and the competing requirements of escape from fire, child safety and security.
3. Morritt LJ held that the Bolam principle applies to persons exercising or professing to exercise a particular skill or calling, not merely to qualified medical practitioners. Its application does not depend on possession of the relevant qualification, except in emergency situations where the circumstances require a different standard. A reasonably skilful window designer could reasonably select either a button lock or a removable-key lock.
4. Sir Christopher Staughton similarly held that the Bolam test did not require the defendant actually to have considered and reflected upon alternative courses before adopting one. The council’s omission to consult the fire service, police or other advisers did not itself establish negligence where the resulting design was acceptable by contemporary professional standards.
5. The majority considered that the judge’s findings established that removable-key locks were in very common use and that competent designers could reasonably have selected them. The council was therefore entitled to the benefit of that professional standard, notwithstanding the tragic consequences and the availability of a safer alternative in retrospect.
6. Morritt LJ considered causation unnecessary to decide because there had been no breach. Sir Christopher Staughton stated that, alternatively, the council’s failure to make further enquiries had not been shown to have caused the deaths or injuries.
7. The appeal was dismissed. The appellants were ordered to pay the council’s costs, not to be enforced without leave. Leave to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the liability decision of Thomas J was dismissed by Morritt LJ and Sir Christopher Staughton, with Sedley LJ dissenting.