Q.
Compare and contrast the principles behind Lamb v Camden London Borough Council (1981) and Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office (1970).
A.
Both cases had the issue of negligence on duty of care caused by defendant but, the damage is suffered from the result of a third party, not the neglect of the defendant.
The Dorset Yocht case was earlier than Lamb, with claimant awarded compensation for damages, however Lamb did not receive award on damages caused due to negligence of defendant Camden LBC.
This is the major difference between the two. For Dorset Yocht Lord Reid took the decision of Lord Atkin on Neightbourhood Test, namely Donoghue v Stevenson, to arrive at the decision that foresseability of the borstal trainees would cause chaos to the neightbourhood. Hence, the Home Office had the duty of care and foreseeability to take responsibility on the borstal trainees who caused collision of Dorset Yocht. If they had taken precautions to prevent the trainees from escaping the enclosure, they could have prevented the accident.
On the other hand, in Lamb the squatters came to the house when it was left vacant due to burst of piping caused by the earth work Camden LBC. Lord Denning ruled that the council had no control if the squatters who damaged the furniture when the house was left uninhibited. Thus, negligence on the part of pipe burst was awarded compensation, but the damage caused by squatters was not. The principle that it was unreasonable or unfair to blame the local council for something outside their control.
To emphasize his point, Lord Denning used the example of prisoners who escaped from detention, and subsequently engaged in crime. He stated that such prisoners, even if having committed heavy crimes, the prison authority was never held responsible for the crime/damage/injury. Such damage caused by prisoners (third person) who escaped from prison, was never taken as negligence of the prison authority.
There are two key principles in the above two cases.
First, the foreseeability test, that the damage was the result of the negligence and can be foreseeable. This means if precaution were to be taken, the accident would have been prevented.
Second, the reasonableness that such damage is due to the neglect. If the neglect is the cause - hence, causation, the reasonableness test is to be carried out onto the damage. If It is not reasonable to expect such level of damage due to the cause, the causation is remote or at best tenuous. In Lamb's case, the Camden LBC could not have cause the furniture damage (as it was locked up by Mrs Lamb), it was the squatters who damaged it.
Example, he suffered a broken rib, but the accident was not major, the reasonableness that the injury was inflicted by the accused is under question. It could be that he had a fracture before the accident.
Ref:
Wikipedia search "Lamb v Camden LBC" & "Dorset Yocht v Home Office", available at
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_v._Camden_LBC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_Yacht_Co_Ltd_v_Home_Office