Emergency Vehicles, Speed, Use of Siren: Armsden (as Executor of the Estate of Rachel Cheesewright deceased) v Kent Police – Court of Appeal (2009)

The defendant’s police car was travelling along on an “A” road at high speed in response to an emergency call when it collided with a car which had turned right out of a minor road into its path. The driver and passenger in the police car survived but the driver of the other vehicle was killed and her estate brought a claim against the police.

The police driver was using the blue flashing lights on his car but not the siren and was travelling at a speed of about 93mph. A witness also gave evidence that on rounding a bend in the road, just before the accident, the police car had crossed the central white line. At first instance the police driver was found to be 100% liable.

The police appealed to the Court of Appeal. They argued that their driver's failure to use his vehicle's siren had not been pleaded as a specific act of  negligence at first instance  and that there was no evidence that the deceased driver would have heard it had it been used. The police driver was also entitled to assume that other drivers would not ignore his approach (as per LJ Judge's statement in the 2001 Court of Appeal case of Scutts v Keyse and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) and that even had he crossed the central white line as alleged this was not causative of the accident.

The Court of Appeal was critical of the judge at first instance's acceptance of the claimant's accident reconstruction expert's evidence that the deceased driver could only be expected to have looked right and then left before turning.

She should have looked right, left and right again especially as her view to the right was restricted by a bend in the road. The police driver had been entitled to assume that a driver waiting to turn onto the main road would not do so without keeping a lookout to the right.

The Court did not consider that the police car crossing the white line was indicative of negligence nor was the failure to use the siren negligent in itself. The fact that the siren was not in use however effectively reduced the speed at which it was safe for the police driver to travel.

The main cause of the accident was the deceased's failure to keep a lookout to her right when entering the major road. The excessive speed at which the police driver was travelling without his car's siren sounding was a contributory cause of the accident. Liability was attributed 60/40 in the police driver's favour.

Comment: the judgment is helpful to the emergency services in two respects. Firstly the Court of Appeal endorsed the comments in Scutts that an emergency service driver is entitled to assume that other road users will not ignore emergency warning equipment. Secondly, the court recognised that it is the duty of drivers to proceed as fast as they safely can in an emergency situation.