Every week we go through updates from Lexis Nexis and make notes about changes in the law which will need to be incorporated in our guides as we do the next updates. Sometimes it feels like a hard slog but today’s updates have brought some excitement – we love law and we’re easily pleased! The Court of Appeal has ruled on not one but two cases which are in our Tort LLB guide.

The first decision is a reversal of the previous judgment. Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley is a tragic case but liability was probably always a bit of a stretch!  An action was brought against the police following a fatal accident which occurred on a very icy stretch of road. This was the second accident of the morning. The police had attended the first accident, had made sure the road was cleared up and had put up a warning sign before departing. The widow of the deceased claimed that following their earlier attendance at the scene, the police had owed a duty to other road users (in particular her husband) to take action to mitigate the risk of a further accident on the same stretch of road. At first instance the court had agreed with her, but the Court of Appeal took the opposite view. The police had done nothing to exacerbate the risk when they had attended the scene of the earlier accident. An understanding by the police that the road was dangerous did not impose a duty on them to take action to mitigate risks for others. If you have our tort book you might want to make a note of this change (the case is on page 24). Think how impressed your tutors will be if you’re bang up to date on the latest Court of Appeal decisions!

In the second case which concerned vicarious liability the Court of Appeal has confirmed the restrictive approach to liability adopted at first instance. This seems entirely in line with the courts general limiting of vicarious liability. In Chell v Tarmac a practical joke went wrong. An employee of Tarmac deliberately placed a pellet next to the claimant and then hit it with a hammer causing a loud bang which damaged the claimant’s hearing. The Court of Appeal found that this action was not taken in the course of the prankster’s employment. There were hammers on the site, but they were not intended for such a use. The prankster had no work reason for being in the area where the event happened and had gone there for the specific purpose of carrying out the prank. There had been some tension between contractors, of whom the claimant was one, and Tarmac staff but this had recently improved and while the claimant had made one complaint he had not asked to be moved and this earlier complaint was not sufficient to find the employers vicariously liable.

Probably no surprises in either of these cases but it is nice to be up to date!