What is the ratio in Osman v Ferguson?

The ratio is that police owe no duty of care to protect individuals from harm by third parties, even when aware of specific threats, due to public policy considerations.

What did the court decide in Osman v Ferguson?

The Court of Appeal decided that the police owed no duty of care to the Osman family and the negligence claim failed.

Why is Osman v Ferguson important for tort law?

It established key limitations on police liability and demonstrates how public policy considerations can prevent the imposition of duties of care on public authorities.

What is the ratio in Osman v Ferguson?

The ratio is that police owe no duty of care to protect individuals from harm by third parties, even when aware of specific threats, due to public policy considerations.

What did the court decide in Osman v Ferguson?

The Court of Appeal decided that the police owed no duty of care to the Osman family and the negligence claim failed.

Why is Osman v Ferguson important for tort law?

It established key limitations on police liability and demonstrates how public policy considerations can prevent the imposition of duties of care on public authorities.

Tort1 min read

Osman v Ferguson

[1993] 4 All ER 344Court of Appeal1993

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Tort cases →

“Police owe no duty of care to protect individuals from third party harm.”

Facts

The Osman family were threatened and harassed by Paul Paget-Lewis, a former teacher obsessed with their son. Despite complaints to police about escalating threats, no action was taken. Paget-Lewis eventually shot and killed the father and wounded the son.

Issues

Whether the police owed a duty of care to protect the Osman family from harm by a third party when they were aware of specific threats.

Held

The Court of Appeal held that the police owed no duty of care. The claim against the police failed.

Significance

This case established important limitations on police liability in tort, influencing subsequent cases on public authority liability. It demonstrates the courts' reluctance to impose duties that might interfere with police operational decisions and resource allocation.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Osman v Ferguson. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344 (CA)

TortNegligenceDuty of CarePublic Authority LiabilityPolice Liability

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Tort cases

Jaqueline Casey & Ors v Environment Agency

[2026] EWHC 178 (KB)

Lepani Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd

[2026] EWHC 1022 (KB)

Salford City Council v Fortis Developments Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 702

Truter v Secretary of State for Justice

[2026] EWHC KB 825

CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] UKSC 5

Bromcom Computers Plc v Arbor Education Partners Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 379

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.