Black Ice and Broken Bridges: A Scottish Perspective on Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

“Pure omissions” do not give rise to liability in the law of negligence. Consequently there is, as a rule, no common-law duty to intervene in order to protect others against hazards that were not of the defender's creation. In the recent English case, Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, the Supreme Court has confirmed the restrictive scope of duty, even on the part of members of the rescue services whose very job it is to assist persons in danger. There are limited exceptions to this general principle, however, and Tindall provides useful guidance on their scope, but areas of uncertainty remain. In that connection Tindall invites reconsideration of the Outer House case of Gibson v Orr. Gibson, like Tindall, involved the inadequate response of police officers attending an emergency, but unlike in Tindall, the police officers in Gibson were found to have breached a duty of care to those subsequently injured.