Road traffic accidents (RTA) involving emergency response vehicles—ambulances, police cars, or fire engines responding under blue lights—are far less common than standard RTA cases. Most road traffic litigation applies the usual common law principles and provisions of the Highway Code, but when an emergency vehicle is involved, the assessment of liability is far more complex.
So, how exactly is fault determined when a collision occurs during an emergency response? And what approach do the courts take when these cases go to trial?
The Legal Framework
The starting point is the legislation: the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions (2002). These provide specific exemptions for emergency response drivers, allowing them to undertake the following when they are responding en-route to an emergency under “blues and twos”:
- Drive in excess of the speed limit
- Overtake on the wrong side of a “keep left” bollard
- Proceed through a red traffic light at a controlled junction
The Landmark Case – Griffen v Mersey Regional Ambulance (1997)
This Court of Appeal decision remains the most frequently cited authority by ambulance, police, and fire services. The case involved a driver, Mr Griffen, who proceeded through a green light at a crossroads and collided with an ambulance which entered the junction in contravention of a red traffic signal.
The decision, which held Mr Griffen 60% to blame, turned largely on the fact that the claimant failed to see or hear the ambulance and ignored the unusual behaviour of other motorists who had stopped to let the ambulance pass. Although the exemption for crossing a red light applied, no evidence of ambulance driver training policies was considered. The judge relied heavily on Rule 76 of the Highway Code, which advises drivers to “look and listen for ambulances… or other emergency vehicles with flashing blue lights or sirens.”
The Shift Since Griffen
In the years since, courts have placed much greater emphasis on the internal driving policies of emergency services. These set out the exact circumstances under which exemptions can be used, and the required procedures for doing so safely.
Both the DTAG Emergency Ambulance Response Handbook and the Police Roadcraft manual (also used for fire service training) underline the same principle:
“No emergency, no matter how serious, will justify causing an accident.”
Courts now expect public authorities not only to justify the use of exemptions, but also to prove that the driver complied with their blue light training and internal policies.
Evidence and Technology
With dashcam footage and telemetry data now routinely available, liability assessments can be far more precise. These materials are often crucial in establishing whether emergency drivers followed correct procedures.
Recent County Court decisions have seen emergency services held wholly liable for collisions—moving away from the Griffen 60/40 split. For claimants, this means there is a strong case for challenging the assumption that Griffen represents the “best outcome” for emergency drivers.
Final Thoughts
The legal landscape has evolved. While Griffen is still relied upon by emergency services, modern judicial thinking looks beyond the Highway Code, scrutinising training standards, operational policies, and the exact circumstances of the collision.
If you’ve been involved in an accident with an emergency response vehicle, expert legal guidance can make all the difference in securing a fair outcome.
Outside of the courtroom, our Author and specialist in this area, Perminder Devgun, recently took part in the “Cycling For Humanity” charity ride from London to Paris—a journey of over 300 miles to raise funds for a great cause. The ride was not without its own drama: partway through, as Perminder was involved in a collision with a bus while cycling. Thankfully, his injuries were minor, and—thanks to the generosity of his fellow riders who lent him their bikes— he was able to complete the challenge. It was a timely reminder that even the most experienced road users face risks, and that safety on the roads should always be everyone’s priority.
If you’d like to discuss a potential claim or simply understand your legal options, contact Perminder Devgun, Director and specialist in emergency response Personal Injury cases at Talbots Law. Call us on 0800 118 1500 or fill out the form below:
Disclaimer
The contents of this blog or any other published by Talbots Law cannot be considered as legal advice. You should take no action without prior consultation with a qualified solicitor or legal professional. The contents of this blog refers to the process in England and Wales.