{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04555555555555556, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03888888888888889, 'mean_word_length': 4.363095238095238, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Negligence, Public Concerns and the Remedying of Wrongs

PUBLIC concerns are sometimes identified as providing a basis upon which to resolve negligence actions against those who bring them. This happens where, for example, claims against the police are rejected on the ground that the imposition of a duty would undermine their ability to fight crime effectively (Osman v. Ferguson [1993] 4 All E.R. 344). Such decisions cast doubt on the plausibility of the view that the remedying of wrongs has "first claim on the loyalty of the law [of negligence]": X v. Bedfordshire County Council [1993] 2 A.C. 633, 749, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. Relevant in this regard are two recent cases involving claims against the fire services: viz., Munroe Ltd. v. London Fire and Civil Defence Authority [1996] 4 All E.R. 318 and Capital and Counties pic v. Hampshire County Council and others [1996] 4 All E.R. 336.