Police not negligent in icy road deaths, rules court

Two men died after their cars collided on an icy patch while driving on the A413

The deaths of two men on an icy road were not due to police negligence, the Supreme Court has ruled.

On 4 March 2014, Malcom Tindall, 64, and Carl Bird, 29, were killed after their cars collided on a patch of ice on the A413 near Great Missenden in Buckinghamshire.

Officers had attended another non-fatal crash at the same location 20 minutes earlier and were disciplined for failing to close the icy road.

Valerie Tindall, widow of Mr Tindall, took legal action alleging police conduct had been negligent and held the chief constable of Thames Valley Police liable, but the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal on Wednesday.

After Mrs Tindall first made the claim, the chief constable applied to strike it out, which initially failed but later succeeded on appeal before the Court of Appeal.

Mrs Tindall then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

In a joint judgement, Justices Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows found officers had no responsibility or duty of care to other drivers.

Fellow justices Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs and Lady Smiler supported the judgement.

They ruled: "The police could not be held liable for making matters worse, and none of the possible exceptions to the general rule that there is no duty of care to protect a person from harm can be made out.

"We would therefore dismiss the appeal."

Judges at the Supreme Court in London ruled the police could not be held liable

On the day of the fatal accident, police officers had earlier attended the scene of a car crash on the A413 at about 04:30 GMT.

The driver, Martin Kendall, lost control of his car on a patch of ice and rolled into a ditch.

Mr Kendall was taken to hospital by ambulance. Police attended the scene where they removed the debris, and it was claimed they did not investigate the patch of ice.

Signs warning drivers to drive slowly were taken down when police left the scene. The fatal crash happened nearby at 05:54.

Ineffectual but no duty of care

In a hearing that took place in June, counsel for Mrs Tindall had argued officers had made matters worse as Mr Kendall had been trying to warn other drivers of the black ice, but he had stopped after the police arrived.

The Supreme Court found the police had no way of knowing Mr Kendall was attempting to stop other drivers and could not have foreseen their attendance would have stopped him.

Officers who attended were criticised for not investigating the ice or warning other drivers.

However, the judges ruled: "Taking steps which are ineffectual, whether because they are inadequate to begin with or because the defendant does not persist in them, cannot give rise to a duty of care."

The BBC has approached Thames Valley Police for a comment on the verdict.