Liability in negligence of the mentally ill

What is it about?

This comment discusses the case of Dunnage v Randall and the basic tenets of the tort of negligence and the standard of care. By comparing this decision against a similar case decided in Canada, it explores the policy considerations at play and the underlying rationale of the tort law regime.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The court in Dunnage v Randall found that a defendant can only escape liability for negligently caused injury if their mental illness entirely eliminates responsibility, thus articulating a strict approach towards the liability in tort of persons suffering from mental illness. The rationale behind this decision is of vital importance to both attorneys and academics working in this area of law.