EWJ June 61 2025 web - Flipbook - Page 64
suspect vehicle pulled up and the occupants fled on
foot. The police car skidded and collided with the
Claimant. The Judge found that the police did not
owe the same duty of care. The Court of Appeal
would disagree, however it dismissed the appeal on
the facts as summarised by Lord Robertson MR. On
the facts, the police officer had made an error of judgment, but the evidence did not show that he had been
negligent.
Whilst the first instance Judge was right to describe
the circumstances as “non trivial”, they were far from
extreme. Whilst the Judge’s reference to “difficult circumstances” and the “heat of the moment” were a factually correct explanation as to how the very basic
error came about, it was not a significant legal reason
to deny liability. If it were, it would suggest that officers
attempting an arrest in relatively mundane circumstances could be excused from taking precaution.
Discussion
The key principle that can be summarised is, that a police car driver owes the same duty, such as to take such
care as is reasonable. However, the nature of police
work is such that circumstances may be significantly different. For that reason, unrealistically demanding standards of care should not be imposed on officers with
little or no time for considered thought.
In the writer’s view, whether an act or omission constitutes negligence or is simply an “error of judgment”
is entirely dependant on the prevailing circumstances
of the time. The more mundane the circumstances,
the greater the likelihood of negligence. Conversely,
as in Marshall, the circumstances may be such that
what would otherwise be considered a negligent act,
can be excused as an error of judgment.
The cases show that although there is no presumption
in favour of either party, if the police driver makes an
error of Judgment, for which any other driver is liable, it is necessary to determine what caused the error
to be made, and only in those circumstances can the
Court decide.
These types of cases are highly fact sensitive and
careful consideration should be given to all the circumstances. What is negligent in one set of circumstances might be considered to simply be an “error of
Judgment” in another.
At the appeal, Mr Justice Bourne considered that the
relevant act or omission of failing to place the vehicle
into park/neutral was not an error of judgment. The
officer’s error did not involve anything in the nature
of decision making, it was a pure omission that any
driver would be bound to make. If the same accident
happened in ordinary circumstances. i.e taking a
phone call and rolling into a pedestrian, this would
plainly be negligent.
Author
Catherine Dent
Barrister at St John's Buildings
Clerk@stjohnsbuildings.co.uk
Catherine is a personal injury barrister with a
particular specialism in disease litigation. She acts for
both Claimants and Defendants in Fast-Track,
Intermediate Track and Multi Track matters.
GOOD NEURORADIOLOGY
Dr Catriona Good
MBChB, FFRad(D), FRCR, PhD, EDiNR
Dr Catriona Good is Consultant in Neuroradiology and Honorary Senior Lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School.
Dr Good is suitably qualified to provide expert opinions on all aspects of brain and spinal neuroimaging.
Including: all aspects of diagnostic brain and spine imaging, brain and spinal trauma, brain haemorrhage
and stroke, neurodegeneration including dementia, movement disorders, skull base, orbital and ENT imaging,
TMJ imaging and Peripheral nerve imaging.
Dr Good has been undertaking medicolegal work for the past 19 years and is a vetted expert for Academy of Experts,
Faculty of Experts and APIL (1st tier) She has also obtained the Cardiff University CUBS qualification.
Cases include personal injury, clinical negligence, criminal cases and GMC and Irish Medical Council
fitness to practice proceedings. She undertakes both Claimant and Defendant work, has civil court experience
including hot tubbing and has been instructed as a Single Joint expert. She undertakes adult cases only.
Dr Good has attended Coroner’s Court on four occasions and an Irish Medical Council hearing.
Medical Report turnaround time is usually 2 -3 weeks but she can provide reports in 5 working days in urgent situations.
Dr Good can also supply Screening Reports.
Email: goodcatriona@gmail.com
Web:www.goodneuroradiology.com
Area of work Nationwide
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
62
JUNE 2025
