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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll