header-logo header-logo

27 November 2015 / Karen O’Sullivan
Issue: 7678 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Sound the alarm

nlj_7678_osullivan

Considering the liability of emergency vehicles is a difficult balancing act for the courts, says Karen O’Sullivan

The Court of Appeal recently considered the issue of liability of emergency vehicles in the case of MacLeod v Commissioner for Metropolitan Police [2015] EWCA Civ 688, [2015] All ER (D) 98 (Jul). Although that case is not the most helpful, being an appeal against findings of facts (hence the appeal was, perhaps not surprisingly, dismissed), it does give us cause to remind ourselves of the law relating to emergency vehicles.

In considering liability, the courts have to perform a difficult balancing act. On one hand, those injured in collisions with emergency services should not be denied compensation, simply because the other vehicle was on an emergency call. On the other hand, if the courts are too liberal with the emergency services’ money, not only will the taxpayer have to foot the bill, but the drivers of such vehicles will be inhibited in their attempts to reach the scene of an emergency promptly.

Duty of care

The first guiding

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll