A question of liability

Recently, Home Secretary Theresa May publically criticised police officers who launch so-called “frivolous” legal actions against police forces and third-party occupiers after being injured on duty, reigniting the debate around the perceived compensation culture and liability for accidents at work.

The public liability case of Norfolk Constabulary PC Kelly Jones – who pursued a garage owner for damages arising from injuries sustained when she slipped on a kerb while undertaking an investigation at his premises – is the latest in a line of personal injury claims being pursued by officers on duty. Such claims are estimated to be worth in the region of £20 million a year (Daily Telegraph, April 1, 2013).

Chief constables are covered by the same duties as other employers. In theory, officers have the same rights as other employees to expect due compliance with such duties and responsibilities and that their reasonable safety at work and on duty will be secured.

The complex regime of statutory regulations makes no fundamental distinction for the emergency services. Under current legislation, chief constables have various duties to ensure, for example, that:

•Foreseeable activities and roles have been risk assessed and appropriate protective measures taken to reduce such risks to acceptable levels. This includes the risk of attack while apprehending offenders and the issuing of suitable equipment;

•Personal protective equipment is fit for purpose and that officers have been appropriately trained in its proper use;

•Officers expected to undertake manual handling activities carrying a foreseeable risk of injury (which may include apprehending suspects) have been appropriately trained in safe handling techniques, ensuring that the need for manual handling has been removed or (where not feasible) reduced to the lowest level possible;

•Work equipment, from the vehicles officers drive to chairs at the station, are maintained in good repair and subject to an inspection regime;

•Officers’ workplaces, including not only police stations but also the various places an officer will visit on patrol, are similarly maintained, well-lit, of suitable construction and, so far as reasonably practicable, clear of hazards which may cause them to slip, trip or fall; and

•Any work at height, such as climbing as part of a pursuit, has been appropriately planned and risk-assessed.

Of course, significant reliance is placed on the individual ensuring that – following well-documented, periodic and thorough training – they are themselves equipped to assess and secure their own safety. Such dynamic risk-assessments are crucial for officers on the beat to ensure they have the tools at their disposal to make decisions to proceed with activities they deem safe.

Case law shows that where there is clear breach of statutory duty, the courts are quite prepared to find against chief constables. In the recent case of Jones v Chief Constable of Hampshire, the court awarded just under £5,000 for an officer’s cut finger during the course of cannabis seizure.

Of course, beyond legal principle, there is an added dimension to claims by officers, particularly in a public liability context. The public policy arguments are those referred to by Mrs May, particularly in respect of claims by officers against land occupiers: “It would be quite wrong if people became reluctant to call the police for fear of being sued.”

There is already provision under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 for occupiers to have certain protection against incidents involving the emergency services given the requirement that any visitor is required to protect themselves against the special risks particular to their calling.

That is intended to deal with examples such as firemen injured responding to a burning building or, analagously, a police officer injured on premises in pursuit of a suspect. But arguably it does not protect an occupier against claims for general risks like dim lighting or tripping hazards posing a risk of injury to all visitors. So the r