Macleod (By His Deputy And Litigation Friend, Macleod) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

An emergency response does not remove the ordinary duty to drive with reasonable care and skill. Warning equipment is an important factor, since drivers may usually assume that road users will respond appropriately, but that principle depends on the circumstances. It does not justify excessive speed or failure to anticipate an avoidable risk. The court must assess the particular road layout, visibility, speed, warning equipment, driver training and applicable police policy. A police driver remains liable where the manner of driving falls below the required standard and causes the accident. A cyclist is not contributorily negligent merely for failing to take emergency evasive action where the emergency vehicle was travelling too fast to stop safely.

The claimant, who had suffered very serious injuries and could not give evidence, claimed damages from the defendant Commissioner arising from a collision between his bicycle and a marked police car responding to an emergency firearms call. The central factual issue was whether the claimant had been cycling north along Southgate Road or had emerged from Northchurch Road into the police car’s path.

The court was required to determine whether the police driver had breached his duty of care, whether the claimant had contributed to the accident, and the effect of the police vehicle’s emergency warnings, the statutory speed exemption and the defendant’s driving policy.

1. Liability. Judgment was given for the claimant on liability. The claimant was cycling north along Southgate Road and was there to be seen. The police driver was travelling at excessive speed in poor lighting and visibility, failed to keep a proper lookout, and failed to drive with the care and skill reasonably required in the circumstances. The breach caused the collision and injury.
2. An emergency response did not displace the ordinary duty of care. Under Marshall v Osmond [1983] QB 1074, the driver remained required to drive with reasonable care and skill. The principles stated in Keyse v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2001] EWCA (Civ) 715 were fact-specific. Although warning lights and sirens may justify an expectation that other road users will respond, they do not authorise an avoidable risk of serious injury.
3. The court adopted the approach in Smith v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2012] EWCA (Civ) 161 that each case must be judged on its own facts and that the defendant’s policy was important. The police policy required safety to be the primary concern and warned drivers not to assume that members of the public had seen or heard emergency equipment.
4. The evidence established that the claimant’s route was Southgate Road. The police driver’s failure to brake for the speed table, his speed, the physical evidence and the interpretation of the incident data supported the conclusion that he failed to see the claimant until it was too late. The claimant was not riding under the influence of alcohol.
5. There was no contributory negligence. The claimant was not required to ride on the pavement or take emergency measures to avoid a police car which was travelling too fast to stop. The factual matrix was materially different from Keyse.

The parties were expected to agree an order reflecting the judgment.