John Mills v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

A driver responding to an emergency remains under a duty to keep a proper lookout and avoid creating disproportionate danger to other road users. The court must assess the driver’s conduct by reasonable foresight, rather than hindsight, while recognising the difficult judgments required in emergency driving. A pedestrian’s careless crossing does not necessarily outweigh the driver’s responsibility, because the driver of a potentially dangerous vehicle bears a high burden. Contributory negligence is assessed on the particular facts. Dependency claims based on anticipated voluntary financial support may be valued as losses of a chance, but recovery remains limited where the evidence shows that significant future payments were improbable.

The claimant, acting as administrator of the estate of the deceased, brought a fatal road traffic claim against the Commissioner of Police. A police van driven by a trained response driver, while responding to an emergency, struck the deceased pedestrian at a junction in Hammersmith. Liability, contributory negligence and damages were disputed.

The court considered whether the officer had kept a proper lookout, the deceased’s responsibility for crossing against the pedestrian signal, and dependency claims brought by two adult children for anticipated financial assistance with education and housing. The central issues were whether the driver’s attention had been reasonably directed to another pedestrian hazard and what financial support the deceased would probably have provided.

1. Liability. The officer failed to keep a proper lookout. The deceased was visible for 4.4 seconds before impact, but the officer did not notice him until approximately 3.2 seconds later. The evidence established that an earlier reaction would have avoided the collision. Although emergency response driving involves rapid decisions and competing risks, the applicable standard is reasonable foresight, not hindsight. The presence and movements of another pedestrian did not adequately explain the delay.
2. Contributory negligence. The deceased crossed after the green pedestrian signal had ended and despite audible sirens and the approaching police van. His conduct was of a higher order of culpability than the officer’s lapse. Nevertheless, applying the approach illustrated in Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107, the court recognised the high burden borne by drivers because a car may be a dangerous weapon. Contributory negligence was assessed at 50 per cent.
3. Dependency. The claims by the deceased’s adult children were treated as loss-of-chance claims. The evidence made significant or regular contributions towards school fees or a house deposit highly improbable. The court assessed possible modest gifts to each child at £5,000 and rejected the claim for a house deposit as too speculative and remote.
4. The court expressed concern about the delay in obtaining the police driver’s first detailed account and urged the defendant to review its procedures. The parties were invited to agree an order reflecting the findings, with costs and collateral matters to be addressed.