Hirst v Nominal Defendant

The case of Hirst v Nominal Defendant involved a police officer who was on duty and driving a marked police car when he observed another vehicle speeding. Upon signalling for the vehicle to stop, the pursued driver failed to comply and instead engaged in a pursuit with the police car. This pursuit ended in a collision, leading the plaintiff, the police officer, to claim damages for the injuries and losses sustained as a result of the accident. The primary legal issues in the case centred on whether the pursued driver owed a duty of care to avoid injuring the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the injury, and the appropriate calculation of damages for the plaintiff's claims.

The court examined whether the pursued driver had a duty of care towards the plaintiff, considering the nature of the interaction between the two parties. It was determined that the pursued driver did indeed owe a duty to avoid a risk of injury to the plaintiff through a deliberate response to the plaintiff's pursuit. The court also assessed whether the chain of causation was broken by the plaintiff's voluntary act of taking pursuit and driving at high speeds. The court ruled that causation should be assessed in relation to the scope and content of the duty of care, ultimately finding that the plaintiff's injuries were a result of the pursued driver's negligence.

Further, the court considered whether the plaintiff's decision to take pursuit was reasonable under the circumstances. It was determined that the plaintiff was not contributory negligent in his actions. Finally, the court addressed the issue of damages, considering the plaintiff's claims of permanent physical disability and post-traumatic stress disorder. The court decided not to discount the damages for the contingency that another event might have resulted in the same condition, leading to the plaintiff being awarded a total of $322,096.32 in damages.