The defendant fish fryer had gone home for the night leaving a burner alight under a pan of fat. The plaintiff fireman was injured attending the consequent fire. He had been ordered onto the roof via a ladder which collapsed when the heat of the fire melted seals on gas rings leading to an escape of gas. He was thrown from the roof and badly injured. The defendants denied any breach of a duty of care to him.
Held: Even though the plaintiff had been given special training on the dangers of fires, the occupier’s duty in causing fire on his premises toward a fireman attending that fire included the ordinary risks and dangers of a fireman’s occupation and was not limited to a requirement to protect the fireman only against special, exceptional, or additional risks; that the fireman’s special skills and training were relevant in determining liability but, where it was foreseeable that a fireman exercising those skills would be injured through the negligence of the occupier, the occupier was in breach of his duty of care; that as the fire had been caused by the defendants’ negligence and since it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would be required to attend the fire and would be at risk of the type of injuries he received from the explosion which was caused by the negligence, the defendants were liable for the those injuries and damages were recoverable by the plaintiff.
Woolf J said: ‘Where it can be foreseen that the fire which is negligently started is of the type which could, first of all, require firemen to attend to extinguish that fire, and where, because of the very nature of the fire, when they attend they will be at risk even though they exercise all the skill of their calling, there seems no reason why a fireman should be at any disadvantage when the question of compensation for his injuries arises.’
Judges:
Woolf J
Citations:
[1983] 1 WLR 1264, (1983) 80 LSG 2523, [1983] 3 All ER 729
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.
Negligence
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.546997