0370 270 6000

Nelson v Chief Constable of Cumbria

15 August 2000
The issues

Police Officers – Duty of Care – Extent Of Duty Owed to Road Users When Not Engaged In Pursuit.

The facts

The Claimant was driving a distinctive car, a vehicle similar to which he had used on previous occasions to speed away from Police vehicles. A Police Officer in a transit van followed the car indicating that it should stop when about 5 to 6 lengths behind and for 50 – 60 metres at 30 – 40 mph. The Claimant performed an emergency stop. The Police vehicle collided with the rear of the car. Minor damage was done and some injury to the Claimant. The Claimant brought an action against the Chief Constable.

The decision

The Police owed the same duty of care as any other driver. This was not a case of pursuit or over excessive speed. Consequently the collision was prima facia evidence of negligence which would require strong evidence in rebuttal to avoid liability. There was none here. However, an unexplained emergency stop was also negligent in the circumstances and the Claimant was found 25% contributorily negligent.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up