Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Subject Matter

NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Police — Motorist warning approaching vehicles of danger after his vehicle skidding on black ice on road and overturning — Police attending accident, erecting warning sign, clearing debris, then leaving scene and removing warning sign — Claimant’s husband killed soon after when vehicle skidding on same ice and colliding with another vehicle — Claimant alleging police owing duty of care to road users to warn of danger — Whether police assuming responsibility so as to give rise to duty of care to prevent harm

[2022] EWCA Civ 25; [2022] 4 WLR 104; [2022] 4 All ER 372; [2022] RTR 16; [2022] PIQR P10, CA

NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Police — Motorist warning approaching vehicles of black ice following accident — Motorist ceasing to warn after police attending accident scene — Claimant’s husband killed soon afterwards in collision caused by black ice — Whether police owing duty of care not to make matters worse — Whether police owing duty of care to protect motorists from harm

[2024] UKSC 33; [2025] AC 1046; [2024] 3 WLR 822; [2025] 1 All ER 1; [2025] RTR 10, SC(E)

Appellate History

Commentary

UK Police Law Blog
Courts reluctant to strike-out negligence actions against the police Case comment

Gatehouse Chambers
“The law is not in a state of flux”: The Court of Appeal clarifies when public authorities may owe a duty of care Case comment

UK Human Rights Blog
Police not liable for failing to protect someone from injury: Supreme Court Case comment

Ropewalk Chambers
Liability of Police Authorities and the Decision in Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police Case comment

12 King's Bench Walk
Liability for omissions: Is the law as it should be? Case comment

QMLR
Public Authorities and Negligence: Lessons from Tindall v Chief Constable Case comment