Supreme Court Ruling in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: A Landmark Decision on Emergency Services Liability

The Supreme Court has issued a significant judgment in the appeal case of Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, expanding the scope of negligence claims. This decision gives future victims of police (or other rescue authority) carelessness a new recourse to justice, and will impact on the responsibilities of emergency services.

The case arose from a tragic accident in March 2014, where Mr Tindall lost his life due to icy road conditions. Earlier that day, Mr Kendall, a motorist involved in a separate incident, had warned traffic of the danger before police intervention. After the police removed Mr Kendall from the scene, a subsequent accident involving Mr Tindall occurred. The widow of Mr Tindall issued claim proceedings against the police for negligence. However, the claim struggled to gain ground in the lower courts owing to the "Omissions Principle".

As a general principle in negligence claims, individuals and public authorities are only liable if their actions cause harm, they are not liable for failing to act to prevent harm. Emergency responders attending scenes of danger, such as an icy patch of road which could cause a car accident and fatal injury, are not obliged to take action to protect innocent members of the public.  This principle, though perhaps counterintuitive in the eyes of the wider public, has few and rarely applied exceptions.

For that reason, the Tindall claim was struck out in lower courts and ultimately was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Counsel for the claimants, led by Joel Leigh, Partner at Howard Kennedy LLP, argued that the police's failure to act did create a duty of care, in that they attended the scene of an accident and interfered in Mr Kendall's efforts to warn other divers, in effect making the situation worse, creating the danger which Mr Kendall sought to prevent.

In a unanimous decision, the Court formally recognised the "interference exception" to the omissions principle. Unfortunately, they also found the police in this situation were precluded from liability on another, slight, factual basis.

Commenting on this, Joel Leigh says: "The claim represents a tragedy for the family, who maintain that the extreme incompetence of the attending officers caused or failed to prevent the ensuing double fatality. The Supreme Court agreed morally, noting that their  “failure .. to take steps to protect road users from the danger posed by the ice hazard…was a serious dereliction of their public duty.  The ruling is a blow  for Mr Tindall's family, yet opens avenues for significantly greater accountability in future public rescue scenarios, including a burning building (such as Grenfell), road traffic accidents, flooding and terrorist response, to name but a few."

This judgment clarifies the legal framework surrounding the duties of emergency services, emphasising the need for far better communication and protocols among responders at accident scenes. Finally, the families fight for justice continues with their ongoing claim against the Local Authority, for failing to maintain the public highway.