Gibson (AP) v Orr, Strathlclyde Police Chief Constable [1999] ScotCS 61 (26 February 1999)

Gibson (AP) v Orr, Strathlclyde Police Chief Constable [1999] ScotCS 61 (26 February 1999)

Where police officers, in exercise of their statutory functions, take operational control of a hazard on a public road that presents a grave and immediate risk to road users, they are in a sufficiently proximate relationship with those road users to owe a duty of care. The imposition of such a duty is not excluded by public policy considerations applicable to criminal investigations, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty in the context of civil operational tasks concerning public safety.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 61
Parties
Pursuer: James Stuart Mulvey Gibson (AP); Defender: John Orr, Chief Constable Strathclyde Police
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (reparation for Negligence) / Opinion on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
Defender's motion to dismiss refused; pursuer's case allowed to proceed to proof restricted to quantum.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Public Authority Liability, Proximity, Fair, Just and Reasonable Test, Omissions Vs Commissions, Vicarious Liability
Tort Law Police Liability Personal Injury Duty of Care Negligence Public Authority Liability Proximity Fair, Just and Reasonable Test +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Stuart Mulvey Gibson (AP)

Pursuer

John Orr, Chief Constable Strathclyde Police

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (reparation for Negligence) / Opinion on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police officers owe a duty of care to road users in operational situations involving hazards not created by the police.
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the police and the pursuer was sufficiently proximate to found a duty of care.
  3. 3 Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty on the police in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

Where police officers, in exercise of their statutory functions, take operational control of a hazard on a public road that presents a grave and immediate risk to road users, they are in a sufficiently proximate relationship with those road users to owe a duty of care. The imposition of such a duty is not excluded by public policy considerations applicable to criminal investigations, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty in the context of civil operational tasks concerning public safety.

Court Disposition

Defender's motion to dismiss refused; pursuer's case allowed to proceed to proof restricted to quantum.

Orders

  • Repel defender's plea to relevancy.
  • Allow proof restricted to quantum of damages.