From:                                                       Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>

Sent:                                                         Tuesday 7 May 2024 12:29

To:                                                            'Nick McBride'; Stephen Pitel; obligations

Subject:                                                   RE: Duty on Police re: Traffic Lights

 

To expand, I think it is very (very, very) unlikely police could owe a duty in England through simply not doing anything. Tindall is a more extreme case given the police were actually involved, whereas this appears to be a straight application of the principle in Robinson v CC of West Yorks.

 

Plainly the police owe no duty to protect other road users from harms they would otherwise suffer on the road, as private persons do not owe such a duty. Someone who installs traffic lights which creates a danger obviously does, so the contractors concession would be rightly made in England.

 

That would leave assumption, but even if they had assumed a duty to the caller, it is hard to see how they could have assumed a duty to any other road users. In the Tindall case, the CA held the police had assumed no duty even where they had told another motorist to stop directing traffic (which is much closer to the line contemplated e.g. Michael v CC of South Wales than these facts, where basically nothing is done).

 

I note that Tindall no longer appears on the UKSC’s website under the ‘current cases’ tab, despite obtaining permission last year, so it is possible it has settled?

 

 

Matthew Hoyle

Barrister

One Essex Court

 

This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you have received it in error please delete it immediately and inform the sender immediately.

 

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

 

From: Nick McBride <njm33@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12:25 PM
To: Stephen Pitel <spitel@uwo.ca>; obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: Duty on Police re: Traffic Lights

 

The answer is no if the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2022] EWCA Civ 25 is any guide. The case is noted here:

https://mcbridesguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Tindall-v-Chief-Constable-of-Thames-Valley-Police.pdf

Tindall is now on appeal to the UK Supreme Court, so watch this space.

All best wishes,

Nick

 

 

Sent from Outlook for iOS

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

 

 

 

Western Law

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.

 

View group files   |   Leave group   |   Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups

 

 

 

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.