영국 과실불법행위법상 경찰의 주의의무 판단 기준 –경찰의 범죄피해자에 대한 주의의무를 중심으로-

This article aims to provide an implication for establishing the test for duty of care in police liability by exploring the relevant U.K. case law. The test for duty of care in the U.K. is summarized as follows: (ⅰ) The fact that police violates statutory duties does not mean that the police are under any duty of care in negligence because the duty in negligence is distinguished from the duty in public law. (ⅱ) The police authorities are generally subject to the same liabilities in tort as private individuals and bodies. Therefore, the police can come under a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of harm if he or she causes the harm, only insofar as the police could be reasonably expected to have foreseen. (ⅲ) Basically, the police authorities owe no duty of care toward individuals to prevent them from being harmed by the conduct of a third party. However, the police may owe a duty of care where the police create or increase a danger of harm which would not otherwise have existed, has assumed a responsibility for an individual’s safety on which the individual has relied, has assumed a status which controls the third party. (ⅳ) The public policy may be considered in determining whether to impose a duty of care on the police. For example, they include the risk of defensive administration or floodgates. These tests are relatively elaborate and specific in comparison to the Korean Supreme Court’s tests which are obscure or uncertain. The test of a duty of care in police negligence should be obvious and practicable as much as possible, so that it can capture legal certainty and predictability. In this light, the U.K. tests for a duty of care has an implication for grasping the contour of the Korean tests for a duty of care in the police liability.