Adlington v Metropolitan Police Authority

An attendant is not negligent merely because an experienced user, familiar with an automatic access system, enters during a cycle opened for another vehicle without express authorisation. Where the system is proper and the attendant is legitimately occupied with another visitor, the duty of care does not necessarily require a warning to wait for a fresh cycle or continued operation of the controls. The user’s own decision to proceed in the face of an apparent risk may therefore prevent liability. Once no breach of duty is established, it is unnecessary to determine contributory negligence or apportionment.

The respondent, a police officer, was injured when his motorcycle collided with an automatic roller shutter while entering an underground car park. The trial judge found that the security officer had permitted him to descend the ramp, but had neither warned him to wait nor remained in the cubicle to operate the shutter. Judgment was entered for the respondent for two-thirds of his damages, with contributory negligence assessed at one-third.

The appellant challenged the finding of negligence. The respondent’s evidence that he had been expressly authorised to proceed had been rejected. The central issue was whether, on the accepted facts, the security officer had fallen below the required standard by failing to warn or stop an experienced user who entered without express clearance.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Pill gave the leading reasons. Lord Justice Thorpe did not dissent, and Mr Justice Scott Baker agreed with Pill LJ.

1. The Court of Appeal proceeded on the trial judge’s findings of fact. The respondent had used the car park regularly for five years and was familiar with its automatic shutter system. The trial judge had rejected his evidence that the security officer beckoned him to proceed.
2. On those findings, the respondent should not have descended the ramp until authorised to do so. The security officer was occupied with another visitor in the legitimate discharge of her duties. She could not properly be criticised for failing to return to the cubicle and operate the controls at that time.
3. The system was a proper one, given the security risk requiring the shutter to remain closed when access was not required. The attendant was not required to warn an experienced user to wait for a fresh operating cycle. Imposing such a requirement would place too high a burden on her. Nor was there a basis for requiring additional barriers or warnings where the risk was apparent to the respondent.
4. The New Scotland Yard Basement Car Park Regulations, including regulation 4, formed part of the context. They required drivers to stop when signalled by the attendant and comply with directions. They did not make the attendant negligent for failing to give an express warning before the respondent entered.
5. As no negligence was established against the attendant, the appellant could not be held vicariously liable. It was unnecessary to consider contributory negligence, causation or apportionment. The appeal was allowed with costs here and below. The £5,000 paid into court was ordered to be paid to the appellant’s solicitors without further order.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal was allowed on the basis that the accepted findings did not establish negligence by the security officer: [2002] EWCA Civ 1712.
2. Central London County Court. On 20 March 2002, His Honour Judge Reynolds found the appellant liable for two-thirds of the respondent’s damages and assessed contributory negligence at one-third.