Gibson v Orr
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1999 |
| Date | 26 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No 45 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE
Lord Hamilton
ReparationNegligencePoliceDuty of careWhether duty owed to passenger in car which drove off collapsed bridgeWhether fair, just and reasonable that police be liableWhether relationship of proximity existed
A bridge carrying a public road collapsed after heavy rainfall had caused exceptionally high and fast flowing waters in a river. On being advised by the relevant authorities of the collapse, police officers on duty coned off the north side of the bridge and positioned a police vehicle on that side with its blue light flashing and its headlights illuminated so as to be visible and to give warning to any persons approaching the bridge from the south side. They later left the scene without having received confirmation that any barrier or warning was in place on that side. Shortly thereafter a car in which the pursuer was a passenger was driven onto the bridge and fell into the river, killing all the occupants apart from the pursuer. The pursuer then brought an action of reparation for damages against the chief constable as being,inter alia, vicariously liable for the actings and omissions of the police officers under his charge. The defender conceded that the accident was foreseeable but maintained mat no duty of care existed so as to attach liability for that accident to him.
Held (1) that in addition to the foreseeability of damage, the necessary ingredients giving rise to a duty of care in personal injury cases were now that there existed between the parry owing the duty and the party to whom it was owed a relationship of proximity or neighbourhood and that the situation was one in which the court considered it to be fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose such a duty; (2) that, where police officers had in furtherance of their function of protecting life and property in a civil context taken control of a hazard on a public road, such constables were, for the purposes of the existence of a public road, such constables were for the purposes of the road users likely to be immediately and directly affected by that hazard and that the duty of care might extend not only to the manner of existence of that control but also to the circumstances of the relinquishment of it; (3) that, in relation to whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, as a matter of policy, there was no immunity for the police in performance of civil operational tasks concerned with human safety on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elizabeth Miller (ap) V. Greater Glasgow Nhs Board
...Court required to consider whether the third element in the Caparo test was satisfied. She submitted that it is plain from Gibson v Orr 1999 S.C.420 page 430D-431D that the Caparo approach is adopted in Scots law. [22] In assessing the relevance of the pursuer's averments, I was therefore i......
- Aitken v Scottish Ambulance Service
-
Brooks v Metropolitan Police Commisioner
... ... Rose LJ agreed and Morritt LJ agreed in a short concurring judgment ... 23 Shortly after the decision in Elguzouli-Daf the same issue came before a differently constituted Court of Appeal (Butler-Sloss and Millett LJJ and Sir Ralph Gibson): Kumar v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ( unreported) 31 January 1995 ... Again, the case involved a strike out application. The thrust of the case was that in instituting and continuing a patently hopeless prosecution for rape, based only on the evidence of a woman who had made repeated ... ...
-
A Mce V. The Reverend Joseph Hendron And Others
...merely a description of circumstances from which, pragmatically, the courts conclude that a duty of care exists." [136] In Gibson v Orr 1999 S.C. 420, Lord Hamilton, as he then was, considered the issue of the application of the criteria just quoted in Scotland. He observed, at page 430D th......
-
The Line Of Duty: Police And The Duty Of Care
...created or added to the danger, which existed independently of anything they had done or not done. In the Scottish case of Gibson v Orr (1999) SC 420, bridge collapsed after heavy rainfall. The police assumed control and closed entry to the bridge on one side, but not the other. They left t......
-
Analysis
...and England have not fared well.2121E.g. Strathford East Kilbride v HLM Design Ltd 1999 SLT 121 at 123F-K per Lord Maclean; Gibson v Orr 1999 SC 420 at 430D-432B per Lord Hamilton. The present case was no exception. The argument that the test for liability was different (and more exacting) ......