header-logo header-logo

Sound the alarm

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll