0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Robinson and others v Northumbria Police Authority

8 November 2001
The issues

Police “hot pursuit” – Authorities obligation to protect officers.

The facts

The Claimants who were officers of the Road Traffic Division of the Northumbria Police Force had been injured whilst driving a marked police car in Sunderland. They had been following a stolen car when they were bombarded with stones and bricks. One officer was hit on the head by half a brick that had broken the windscreen. He was seriously injured. The others suffered PTSD. Similar attacks had been frequent in the North of England in the early 1990’s, in the forms of throwing missiles from car roofs or ambushing police cars when they stopped. Senior officers were aware of these attacks. Eighty-five incidents were put before the Court – but none involving the breaking of a windscreen. Following an incident in 1993 a report was commissioned and a different type of windscreen recommended. Twenty-eight were fitted and sixty placed on order. It was accepted that the accident would not have occurred if the new windscreen had been in place. The Defendants argued that other forces had not found it necessary to install stronger windscreens and that in 1991 they had not been therefore negligent and that moreover the windscreens were compliant with regulations in force at the time and were fitted only as a consequence of the accident. The Judge at first instant found the police authority liable. The police authority appealed.

The decision

1. The authority had known of the risk of flying glass. It was foreseeable that a windscreen would break sooner or later.

2. It was irrelevant that the new windscreens had been abandoned by these Defendants and other forces in 1997. Subsequent events could not justify the failure to take what would have been appropriate action in 1991. Appeal dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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