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

Forgotten your password?

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

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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