11 November 2024
Tindall and one other (Appellants) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (Respondent) [2024] UKSC 33, on enchantment from [2022] EWCA Civ 25
Justices: Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows and Girl Simler
The Supreme Courtroom has affirmed that there is no such thing as a responsibility of care, and therefore no legal responsibility in negligence, for failing to confer a profit, which incorporates failing to guard an individual from harm, versus making issues worse. This is applicable equally to public authorities such because the police because it does to non-public people.
Temporary Abstract
On 4 March 2014, Mr Kendall’s automotive skidded on a patch of black ice on the A413 street, inflicting him to lose management and roll over right into a ditch. Involved by the state of the street, after making an emergency name, he stood by the street signalling vehicles to decelerate.
Round 20 minutes later, cops attended the scene. They began clearing up particles from the accident and put up a “Police Gradual” join. After warning the police in regards to the harmful state of the street, Mr Kendall left to go to the hospital to have a tendency for non-life-threatening accidents he had suffered. It was alleged that, however for the arrival of the police, Mr Kendall would have continued makes an attempt to alert street customers of the hazard. Having cleared the particles, and after Mr Kendall had gone to hospital, the cops eliminated the “Police Gradual” signal and left the scene, with the street in the identical situation because it had been beforehand. They did so within the perception that there was no hazard and having failed to find or examine the sheet ice.
About an hour after the primary accident, at 5.45am Mr Malcom Tindall was killed in a second accident when his automotive was hit by an oncoming automobile which had skidded on the ice (the motive force, Mr Chook, was additionally killed).
The appellant, Mr Tindall’s widow, introduced a declare in opposition to the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, the Respondent, alleging the police’s conduct on the scene of the accident was negligent and that the Chief Constable was vicariously liable.
The first declare was that the response of the police to an earlier accident on the identical stretch of street made issues worse. Alternatively, it was argued that the case fell inside one of many exceptions to the overall rule that no responsibility of care is owed to guard an individual from hurt.
The chief constable utilized to strike out the declare on the bottom that the details agreed or alleged didn’t disclose a sound declare in legislation or, alternatively, for abstract judgment on the bottom that the declare had no actual prospect of success. That software failed at first occasion however succeeded on an enchantment to the Courtroom of Attraction. The claimant appealed from that call.
The Supreme Courtroom unanimously dismissed her enchantment. On the assumed details, the police intervention didn’t give rise to any attainable legal responsibility for making issues worse, and none of the attainable exceptions to the overall rule that there is no such thing as a responsibility of care to guard an individual from harm could possibly be made out.
A extra detailed account of the details and reasoning behind the judgement is about out within the Courtroom’s Press Abstract.
Remark
In 2023 Conor Monighan, barrister at 5 Essex Courtroom, wrote a put up for UKHRB on the case of Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB). On this judgment, will probably be recalled, the Divisional Courtroom discovered that the police have been beneath a constructive widespread legislation responsibility to warn the claimant of a possible hazard from her estranged associate who had stalked her and subsequently attacked and injured her. The Courtroom discovered the police had assumed duty in the direction of the claimant by advising her to arrange a ‘protecting ring’ round her property and, within the different, that this was a uncommon ‘particular / distinctive’ case through which there was a constructive responsibility to warn.
In his touch upon the ruling in Woodcock, Conor mirrored that “this was the primary time {that a} larger court docket has discovered that ‘distinctive/ particular circumstances’ justified the imposition of a constructive, widespread legislation, responsibility on the police to warn. If the choice is left unchallenged, it could open the door for future claims and result in a gradual widening of the ‘distinctive circumstances’ through which public authorities could be liable in negligence.”
You possibly can hear Conor discussing this case in additional element with me on Regulation Pod UK right here.
Does this newest ruling by the Supreme Courtroom sign a return to the orthodoxy laid down in Michael [2015], and Robinson [2018]?
The Courtroom stated, in phrases, that it had “not been invited on this enchantment to contemplate departing from Michael and, given the burden of that authority and the additional physique of authority since based on it, this could not have been a practical argument to advance.” (para [86]).
It’s value reminding ourselves what Michael established. At para 97 of that judgment Lord Toulson stated:
“The basic purpose [for dismissing this claim] … is that the widespread legislation doesn’t typically impose legal responsibility for pure omissions. It’s one factor to require an individual who embarks on motion which can hurt others to train care. It’s one other matter to carry an individual liable in damages for failing to forestall hurt brought on by another person.”
The Courtroom additionally affirmed that “it’s now firmly established (or re-established) that the legal responsibility of public authorities within the tort of negligence to pay compensation is ruled by the identical ideas that apply to non-public people”(para [1]). A logical step from this – which will likely be of shock to some – is that no rescue service will likely be in breach of a standard legislation responsibility of care if it makes no try at rescue in any respect. Due to this fact no legal responsibility may come up from attempting which is ineffectual. Though the police have statutory powers and duties to defend the general public from hurt, a failure to take action, doesn’t (of itself) make the police liable in the tort of negligence to pay compensation to an injured particular person except, making use of the identical ideas, a non-public particular person would have been so liable. (Paras [20] – [44] )
Mr Kendall, after his accident, had been warning different drivers of the hazard of the black ice, by making an attempt to flag them down, and would, it was stated, have continued to take action had the police not arrived. The police “interfered” with this exercise on their arrival. For the primary time the Supreme Courtroom has accepted that there could be legal responsibility beneath what has been labelled the “interference” precept. Based on this, there could possibly be legal responsibility within the tort of negligence the place an individual intervenes supplied that that particular person is aware of or ought fairly to have identified (i.e. it have to be fairly foreseeable) that the intervention may need the impact of stopping one other particular person’s warning or rescue makes an attempt. (paras [48] – [58]).
The “interference” precept arose out of a collection of first responder instances marked by Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36, the place a name handler for the London Ambulance Service gave assurances that an ambulance would attend with cheap pace, and the Supreme Courtroom choice in Darnley v Well being Providers NHS Belief [2018] UKSC 50, the place the SC noticed that the supply of deceptive info which brought about bodily hurt was solely actionable if such hurt was foreseeable. The Courtroom on this occasion endorsed the interference precept, saying that it was
“merely a specific illustration or manifestation of the responsibility of care to not make issues worse by performing in a manner that creates an unreasonable and fairly foreseeable threat of bodily harm to the claimant. There isn’t any purpose in precept why the conduct which creates this threat mustn’t consist in acts that are foreseeably prone to have the impact of laying aside or stopping another person from taking steps to guard the claimant from hurt.” (para [56])
However the interference was not made out on this case. It isn’t sufficient to point out that the defendant had acted in a manner which had the impact of laying aside or stopping another person from serving to the claimant. Fairly, for an obligation of care to come up, it’s crucial to point out that the defendant knew or should have identified (ie that it was fairly foreseeable) that its conduct would have this impact. There was no proof earlier than the court docket that the police have been conscious that, earlier than calling 101, Mr Kendall had been trying to warn different motorists of the ice hazard. Nor was it alleged that Mr Kendall stated something to the decision handler or to any of the cops who attended the scene of his accident to counsel that he had any intention of constructing such makes an attempt. It was essential to the appellants’ case that the police knew that for personal causes, Mr Kendall would have taken such steps as he may to guard street customers from hurt. They didn’t have any purpose to know that, and subsequently the forseeability requirement was not met.
“Making use of the interference precept, the police couldn’t be held accountable for making issues worse; and not one of the attainable exceptions to the overall rule that there is no such thing as a responsibility of care to guard an individual from hurt could be made out.” [89]
The second argument put ahead by counsel for Mrs Tindall was that one of many exceptions to the overall rule of no legal responsibility for failure to guard one other from harm utilized right here. The exceptions urged upon the court docket have been assumption of duty, management and standing. However none of those exceptions could possibly be made out on the assumed details. There was no assumption of duty by the police to different drivers to guard them from the black ice hazard [74] – [77]; the police didn’t have management of the patch of black ice which was the supply of hazard [78] – [84]; and no responsibility of care may come up merely on the idea of the standing of the police as skilled emergency responders. [85] – [87]