Ancell v McDermott

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings arise from a road traffic accident occurring in the early hours of 17th August 1988 on Airport Way, The City. An articulated bulk carrier driven by the fourth defendant lost a length of aluminium tube which fell onto the road. Subsequently, the first defendant drove over the tube, rupturing his vehicle’s fuel tank and spilling diesel fuel on the road. The first defendant continued driving until the car ran out of fuel, leaving a trail of diesel on the road. Police officers from two different constabularies encountered the spillage but did not take steps to warn other road users or control traffic at the site. Later, the first plaintiff's wife skidded on the diesel, losing control and colliding with an oncoming lorry, sustaining fatal injuries. The first plaintiff and second plaintiff were also injured in the collision.

The first plaintiff, representing himself and the dependants of the deceased, claimed damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts. Claims were made against the first and fourth defendants for negligence and nuisance, and additionally against the second and third defendants for alleged breach of duty and negligence by their officers. The Chief Constables of the second and third defendants applied to strike out the claims against them as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The application was initially rejected by Mr Justice Garland, and the Chief Constables appealed to this court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether police officers owe a duty of care to other road users to warn or protect them from hazards on the highway which they have not created or for which they are not responsible.
2. Whether the failure of police officers to warn or control traffic in the presence of a hazardous spillage on the highway constitutes a breach of duty owed to individual members of the public.
3. Whether imposing such a duty on police officers would be contrary to public policy due to the potential scope and impact on police resources.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Police officers, while carrying out their duties, owe no duty of care to protect road users from hazards they did not create or for which they are not responsible.
• Reliance on Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and Alexandrou v. Oxford to support the absence of duty of care in such circumstances.
• It would be against public policy to impose such a duty as it would lead to extensive litigation, divert police resources, and hamper ordinary police duties.

Respondents' Arguments

• Police officers have a general duty to protect the public from injury and damage, including taking reasonable steps to warn or control hazards on the highway.
• Reliance on Haynes v. Harwood to confirm the existence of a police duty to prevent accidents arising from uncontrolled hazards.
• Argued that the failure to act in the present case was negligent and that a duty of care should be recognized based on public duties and precedents such as Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] 1 A.C. 53	Police owe a duty to the public at large but not to individual members of the public in the conduct of criminal investigations.	Used to support that police do not owe a duty of care to individuals for hazards they did not create or control.
Alexandrou v. Oxford (Chief Constable of Merseyside Police) [1990] EWCA Civ 19	Failure to carry out proper police investigations does not create a duty of care to individuals.	Reinforced the principle that police owe no duty of care to individuals in investigative functions.
Haynes v. Harwood [1935] 1 K.B. 146	Police have a discretionary duty to prevent accidents arising from uncontrolled hazards if in a position to do so.	Considered but distinguished as relating to public duties rather than a duty of care owed to individuals.
Reg. v. Dytham [1979] Q.B. 722	Wilful neglect of public duty by police officers can constitute a criminal offence.	Clarified that criminal liability for neglect does not equate to a civil duty of care to individuals.
Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1970] AC 1004	Public authorities may owe a duty of care in relation to the failure to perform public duties, especially when special relationships exist.	Distinguished on facts; the court found no sufficient proximity or special relationship here.
Knightley v. Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349	Police officers may owe a duty of care to subordinates in operational decisions causing injury.	Held not relevant to the present case as the relationship and circumstances differ.
Caparo plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 W.L.R. 358	Established a three-stage test for duty of care: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.	Applied to assess whether a duty of care could be imposed on police officers in this context.
Yuen Kun Yeu v. Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1988] 1 A.C. 175	Special relationships may give rise to a duty of care to control others’ actions to prevent harm to strangers.	Found exceptional and not applicable to general police duties in this case.
Clough v. Dussan, West Yorkshire Police Authority [1990] R.T.R. 178	Police authority not liable for failing to respond to information about traffic signals causing an accident.	Supported the conclusion that no duty of care was owed by the police in similar circumstances.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began with the assumption that the facts alleged against the appellants were true, including that police officers observed the diesel spillage but took no steps to warn or control traffic. The central question was whether, in such circumstances, police officers owe a duty of care to other road users to protect or warn them from hazards created by others.

The court examined established legal principles, including the duty owed by police officers to the public at large but not to individual members, as set out in Hill and Alexandrou. It distinguished the present case from others where special relationships or operational decisions gave rise to a duty of care, such as in Dorset Yacht or Knightley, finding those circumstances not analogous.

The court considered the policy implications of imposing such a duty, emphasizing that it would expose police officers to potentially unlimited liability and divert resources from their primary functions. It noted that the general public duty to protect life and property does not translate into a specific duty of care to individuals in the context of hazards created by third parties on the highway.

Applying the three-stage test from Caparo plc v. Dickman, the court found that while harm was foreseeable, the necessary proximity and fairness to impose a duty of care were absent. The court concluded that imposing such a duty would not be fair, just, or reasonable in the circumstances.

Accordingly, the court held that the appellants’ police officers did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs in respect of the failure to warn or control traffic on the hazardous road surface.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the lower court and striking out the action against the second and third defendants (the police authorities). The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the action against these defendants, subject to certain conditions regarding enforcement. The application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

The decision clarifies that police officers do not owe a duty of care to individual road users to protect or warn against hazards on the highway created by third parties, consistent with prior case law. No new precedent extending police duties was established. The ruling underscores the importance of limiting police liability to avoid undue interference with their public functions and resource allocation.