Marshall v Osmond

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
JudgeTHE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DILLON,SIR DENYS BUCKLEY
Judgment Date16 Mar 1983
Judgment citation (vLex)[1983] EWCA Civ J0316-2
Docket Number83/0149

[1983] EWCA Civ J0316-2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

(MR. JUSTICE MILMO)

Royal Courts of Justice.

Before:

The Master of The Rolls

(Sir John Donaldson)

Lord Justice Dillon and

Sir Denys Buckley

83/0149

1977 M. No. 491

Victor Marshall
Appellant (Plaintiff)
and
Sir Douglas Osmond
Respondent (First Defendant)

and

Maximilian Anthony Needham
Respondent (Second Defendant)

MR. J. SPOKES, Q.C. and MR. C. GABB (instructed by Messrs. Blatch & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

MR. I. KENNEDY, Q.C. and MR. R. DENNING (instructed by Messrs. Theodore Goddard & Co., London agents for R.A. Leyland, Esq.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

1

REVISED JUDGMENT

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
2

Mr. Kennedy, we need not trouble you.

3

This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Milmo given in London on the 1st February, 1982 following a hearing which took place in Winchester in the autumn of the previous year. By that judgment the learned judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries which he sustained in what can loosely be described as a motor accident. It was, however, an unusual motor accident arising out of unusual facts.

4

The first defendant is Sir Douglas Osmond, the Chief Constable of Hampshire, and he features by virtue of his vicarious liability for the second defendant Police Constable Needham.

5

Police Constable Needham was the driver of an unmarked red Mini in the early hours of the morning of the 2nd May, 1977. He had been dispatched to the Brockenhurst area together with a Police Constable Ford to keep special observation because there had been a spate of stealing and taking and driving away motor cars without the consent of the owner.

6

Whilst on duty, at 1.10 a.m., he saw a Mk II Cortina being driven past with a number of youths inside. Bearing in mind the time of night and the previous history of the area, this aroused his suspicions and he started to pursue the Cortina. His plan was not to stop the Cortina at that stage, but to find out which road it was going to take and then radio ahead for assistance from uniformed officers in marked cars to stop it.

7

However, the Cortina pulled into a lay-by, possibly to ascertain the nature of the car which was following it, and Police Constable Needham pulled his car up slightly in front of the Cortina. Police Constable Ford got out. At that stage the Cortina reversed at considerable speed. It then drove forward, passing the Mini, and continued down the road. Police Constable Ford got back into the Mini, and Police Constable Needham set off in pursuit of the Cortina.

8

After the Cortina had travelled about 400 or 500 yards, it crossed to the offside of the road and stopped in a lay-by. The youths then got out with a view to making themselves scarce. I should say that the whole incident took place on one of the open New Forest roads where there were no houses, and the youths were intending to make their escape across open country.

9

Police Constable Needham's intention was to draw up alongside the Cortina. He braked, and as he braked he skidded slightly sideways, and his car came into contact with the Cortina, causing damage to his car and no doubt to the Cortina. When he got out he found the plaintiff lying on the lay-by between the two cars. He had a seriously injured leg.

10

That is a bare outline of the background facts. Against that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Deirdre Hayes v The Minister for Finance
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 23 February 2007
    ...Kenny v. Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (Unreported, Supreme Court, 3rd April, 1995). Marshall v. OsmondELRWLRUNK [1983] 1 Q.B. 1034, [1983] 3 W.L.R. 13, [1983] 2 All E.R. 225. Noel v. BotkinUNK (1995) 9 B.C.L.R. (3d) 21; [1995] 7 W.W.R. 479. Rice v. ConnollyELRWLRUNK [1966] 2 Q.B. 414; [......
  • Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 28 March 1996
  • Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 8 February 2018
    ...care for the safety of their officers. There are also numerous cases concerned with road accidents involving police cars, such as Marshall v Osmond [1983] QB 1034, where Sir John Donaldson MR observed that the duty owed by a police driver to a suspected criminal whom he was pursuing was th......
  • Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 March 1997
    ...1 W.L.R. 1242" 86Other examples would be Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 A.C. 310 the Hillsborough case, and Marshall v. Osmond [1983] Q.B. 1034. These are cases, as we have already pointed out, where the police created danger and are closely analogous to the Ham......
  • Request a trial to view additional results