Road Traffic Accident

Tindall and another (Appellants) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (Respondent) On 4th March 2024, Mr. Kendall’s car skidded on black ice, causing it to roll into a ditch. He was concerned about the state of the road so, after he had made an emergency call, he stood by the road signalling cars to slow down.

Approximately 20 minutes later, police officers attended. They started clearing debris and put up a “Police Slow” sign. Mr. Kendall warned the police about the state of the road and then left to visit hospital for his injuries. It is alleged, that but for the arrival of the police, Mr. Kendall would have continued to attempt to warn road users of the danger.

Having cleared the debris, the police removed the sign and left the scene, with the road in the same condition. About an hour after the first accident Mr. Tindall was very unfortunately killed in a second accident when his car was hit by an oncoming vehicle which had skidded on the ice.

Allegation that the Chief Constable is vicariously liable The appellant, widow and administratix of the estate of Mr. Tindall, brought a claim against the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, the Respondent. She alleges that the police’s conduct was negligent, and the Chief Constable is vicariously liable.

The Chief Constable applied to strike out the claim. The application failed at first instance but succeeded at the Court of Appeal. This is now appealed to the Supreme Court with the question of “in the circumstances, did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the police did not owe road users a duty of care to protect them from harm, either on the basis that their presence at the scene made the situation worse or that they assumed a responsibility to protect road users?”

The Temple Perspective

This is an interesting case that could establish a new duty of care for the police, opening up a new type of claim made against the police in situations where they acted negligently and did not adequately protect road users.