The plaintiff fireman was injured when fighting a fire at a factory where the defendants had allowed large quantities of fine dust containing aluminium and carbon particles to accumulate. The plaintiff was injured by a dust explosion caused by the defendants allowing their premises to be in a condition which created ‘exceptional and serious risks’ of fire and explosion.
Held: The court rejected the defence of volenti. The injury was suffered by a fireman who was under a duty to go to the scene of the fire and could not therefore be described as ‘volens’.
Hallett J said: ‘This may be a convenient moment to say emphatically that I do not accept the submission of leading counsel for the plaintiff that, if a fireman sustains injury as the result of performing his duty at a fire, he ipso facto becomes entitled to recover compensation from any person whose carelessness has caused the fire in question.’ and ‘a real assent to the assumption of risk without compensation must be shown by the circumstances . . If, however, a man acts under the compulsion of a duty, such consent should rarely, if ever, be inferred, because a man cannot be said to be ‘willing’ unless he is in a position to choose freely.’
Hallett J
[1952] 2 All ER 1101, (1953) 117 JP 23
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ogwo v Taylor HL 19-Nov-1987
A firefighter sought damages for personal injuries from the party negligent in starting a fire, suffered while attending it.
Held: A property owner owes a duty of care to firemen, not, by his negligence, to start a fire, or to create special . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.546995
