From: James Lee
<james.lee@kcl.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday 7
May 2024 12:25
To: Stephen
Pitel; obligations
Subject: Re: Duty
on Police re: Traffic Lights
Dear
Stephen,
Interestingly,
the UK Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in a relevant case -
Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/25.html.
The police attended an accident caused by ice on the road, put up a sign while
they dealt with the scene, then took the sign away and another accident
occurred. The Court of Appeal found that no duty had been owed to the subsequent
driver. The case will test the naming it worse/failing to make it better
issues. It is perhaps somewhat surprising that permission was granted given the
strength of Stuart-Smith LJ's reasoning after recent Supreme Court cases on
duty of care.
Best wishes,
James
James Lee
Professor
of English Law
The
Dickson Poon School of Law
Somerset
House East Wing
King's
College London
Strand
London
WC2R 2LS
E-mail: james.lee@kcl.ac.uk
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/james-lee
Can I help? My Feedback, Advice and
Support Hours for the Spring Semester are Tuesdays 11-12pm and Fridays 2-4pm, room SW1.12.
My research day one day a week in
termtime when research is prioritised over teaching and administration for
the Spring Semester is generally Monday, and so please note that I
may be less prompt in replying to messages on that day
Latest Article: Not Time to Make a Change ? Reviewing the
Rhetoric of Law Reform (2023) 76 Current Legal Problems 129-172 https://academic.oup.com/clp/article/76/1/129/7190492
From: Stephen Pitel <spitel@uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12:17:01 PM
To: obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: ODG: Duty on Police re: Traffic Lights
List
members,
I m
working through a recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Emil
Anderson Maintenance Co Ltd v Taylor, 2024 BCCA 156. It is available
here: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca156/2024bcca156.html
A motorist
notices the traffic lights at an intersection are not operating and that some
cars, instead of stopping as if at a four-way stop (uncontrolled intersection),
are proceeding through at speed. The motorist calls the police to notify
of the problem and expresses the concern that there could be a serious
collision if action is not taken.
The police
took no meaningful action. Ninety minutes later there was a serious
collision at the intersection resulting in a fatality.
The appeal
court confirmed the lower court s decision that the police owed a duty of care
to users of the road and that they had breached it, causing the injuries.
The police were held liable.
Also, it
would seem by chance, an employee of Emil Anderson Maintenance Co. Ltd., the
highway maintenance contractor responsible for that section of highway, drove
through the intersection twice while the lights were out. The employee
took no steps regarding the outage.
The
contractor was also held to owe a duty of care which it breached. It was
also held liable. The appeal decision does not address the duty issue;
only standard and causation. The lower court also did not address duty
because the contractor admitted that it owed a duty to users of the
intersection.
There is a
fair amount to unpack in the decision. To start, though, one question I
have is whether, under English law as it now stands, the police would be under
a duty of care to road users on receiving such a notification.
Stephen
Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
Faculty of Law, Western University
(519) 661-2111 ext 88433
President, Canadian Association for Legal Ethics/Association canadienne pour
l ethique juridique
|
|
|
|
|
You're receiving this message because you're a member of the
obligations group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in
this conversation, reply all to this message. |
|
|
|
| Learn more
about Microsoft 365 Groups |
|
|