"The Law Is Not In A State Of Flux": The Court Of Appeal Clarifies When Public Authorities May Owe A Duty Of Care

• Published date: 16 February 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Rail, Road & Cycling, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: Gatehouse Chambers
• Author: Ms Charlotte Wilk

The very recent Court of Appeal decision in Tindall & Anor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 25 clarifies when public authorities may owe a duty of care. The key question was whether police officers who attended a road traffic accident caused by black ice owed a duty of care to make the road safe for subsequent motorists: it was held that no duty was owed.

Background and facts

The proceedings arose out of a fatal road traffic accident which occurred at 5:45am on 4 March 2014. The Claimant was the widow and administratrix of the estate of her late husband, Mr Malcolm Tindall. Mr Tindall was involved in a head-on collision with Mr Carl Bird whilst driving along the A413 between Wendover and Amersham. Mr Bird had been travelling in the opposite direction and skidded on black ice. Sadly, both men were killed.

One hour prior to the tragic fatal accident, there had been another accident, whereby a Mr Kendall's vehicle had skidded on the same stretch of black ice. His car had rolled over into a ditch, causing him to suffer injuries for which he was taken to hospital by ambulance. Coincidentally, Mr Kendall had worked as a road gritter and was familiar with the stretch of road. Before the arrival of the emergency services, Mr Kendall started to warn oncoming vehicles by signalling to them to slow down. The Chief Constable's police officers arrived and cleared debris from the road, and they erected a "Police Slow" sign by the carriageway. About 20 minutes or so before the fatal accident between Mr Tindall and Mr Bird, the police officers departed the scene and took their "Police Slow" sign with them. It was alleged that the police officers' conduct both at the scene and upon departure was negligent and that the Chief Constable was vicariously liable to the Claimant in tort.

The Chief Constable applied to strike out the Claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, for summary judgment. Master McCloud considered that the case law showed that what amounts to an intervention which makes things worse is a fact dependent exercise. Therefore, it could not be said that the case as pleaded disclosed no good legal grounds or had only fanciful prospects of success. The application was therefore dismissed. The Chief Constable appealed against the Master's refusal.

The grounds of appeal

There were three grounds of appeal:

Firstly, that the Master erred in concluding that it was arguable that the Chief Constable owed a duty...