This seems highly bizarre 
If we, the public, are to be held accountable for the safety of police officers who respond to calls, should we not at least be issued with guidelines to allow us to protect ourselves? I'm not sure exactly what the owner of the garage was expected to do in order to protect the officer? What was his specific duty of care in this instance? To light up the entire premises before the police arrived? To provide a detailed map of all "potential hazards" (including, it seems, a kerb )? To force the officer to sign a disclaimer disavowing the garage owner from any responsibility?
I think that this kind of spurious legal action undermines public confidence in the police - which is an absolute shame. I have no doubt that 99.9% of officers would never dream of taking legal action in this way.
Don't get me wrong - police officers who are injured on duty should have recourse to compensation if they are put out of work or otherwise disadvantaged by the injury. But such compensation should be covered through police insurance - not paid for by the person who called the police for help... Of course, if a member of the public *deliberately intends* the police officer harm then that is a different matter entirely, and would surely be considered an offence under current laws anyway.
In short - we all appreciate that policing can be a dangerous occupation, but when you make "victims" of crime liable for injuries of an officer then it's a slippery slope. What happens if I get stabbed, call the police, and the officers who give chase are also stabbed / slashed by the perpetrator? Am I then liable for their medical bills? What if I have no "personal insurance"? Do I then have to pay for their private medical expenses from my own pocket? Where does it end?
Hopefully this case will be promptly thrown out and will lead to some more common-sense guidelines for officers suing the public.
If we, the public, are to be held accountable for the safety of police officers who respond to calls, should we not at least be issued with guidelines to allow us to protect ourselves? I'm not sure exactly what the owner of the garage was expected to do in order to protect the officer? What was his specific duty of care in this instance? To light up the entire premises before the police arrived? To provide a detailed map of all "potential hazards" (including, it seems, a kerb
)? To force the officer to sign a disclaimer disavowing the garage owner from any responsibility?I think that this kind of spurious legal action undermines public confidence in the police - which is an absolute shame. I have no doubt that 99.9% of officers would never dream of taking legal action in this way.
Don't get me wrong - police officers who are injured on duty should have recourse to compensation if they are put out of work or otherwise disadvantaged by the injury. But such compensation should be covered through police insurance - not paid for by the person who called the police for help... Of course, if a member of the public *deliberately intends* the police officer harm then that is a different matter entirely, and would surely be considered an offence under current laws anyway.
In short - we all appreciate that policing can be a dangerous occupation, but when you make "victims" of crime liable for injuries of an officer then it's a slippery slope. What happens if I get stabbed, call the police, and the officers who give chase are also stabbed / slashed by the perpetrator? Am I then liable for their medical bills? What if I have no "personal insurance"? Do I then have to pay for their private medical expenses from my own pocket? Where does it end?
Hopefully this case will be promptly thrown out and will lead to some more common-sense guidelines for officers suing the public.
