A judge has ruled a Fire Board liable for the injuries sustained by two fire-fighters, who were instructed to tackle a garage blaze in South Lanarkshire, Scotland.
Brian Dempsie, who was a trainee at the time of the incident five years ago, and his colleague, Ross French, were awarded £332,500 and £113,000, respectively, following a hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
The court heard that the two men were part of a crew of fire-fighters responding to a blaze, which broke out in a garage adjacent to a house in a street in Bothwell, in the early hours of 1 February 2008.
When they arrived, flames had penetrated the garage roof, part of which had been destroyed. The watch commander, James Clark, decided that, in order to fight the fire, it was necessary to open the metal, cantilevered door at the front of the building. Mr French was instructed to use a crowbar-type tool to force the door open. As he tried to prise it open, the brickwork above the door collapsed and fell on top of both Mr French and Mr Dempsie, who was directing a hose reel towards the flames.
Mr French sustained serious leg injuries, while Mr Dempsie suffered burns, dislocated his shoulders, fractured a knee cap and injured his ankle.
In the judgement issued yesterday (9 January), Lord Drummond Young ruled that both men were entitled to damages and threw out defendant Strathclyde Fire Board’s plea of contributory negligence.
Given the condition of the roof, the watch commander should have realised that the gable wall was unsupported and unstable, explained the judge, who added: “In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that Watch Commander Clark ought to have realised that ordering fire-fighters into the area adjacent to the front door, immediately under the gable wall, was inherently hazardous.
“There was a significant likelihood that the wall would collapse, and the consequences of such collapse would be very serious for the fire-fighters underneath it.”
Lord Drummond Young also ruled that it was not necessary to subject the fire-fighters to this risk because the fire was contained, no lives were at risk, and there were no dangerous materials inside the garage. Not only should this have been apparent to the watch commander but he should also have realised the danger presented by the use of the breaking-in device to force entry. The judge agreed with the evidence of an expert witness that the wall probably collapsed because of the vibration caused by the use of the tool.
As well as establishing liability in common law, the judge ruled that the Fire Board was liable under reg.4 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, in respect of the burn injuries sustained by Mr Dempsie. Although evidence was presented to support the fact he was wearing standard protective equipment, liability under reg.4 of the PPE Regulations is strict.
Both claimants also took action based on reg.4 of PUWER 1998, in relation to the use of the crowbar-type tool, which was likely to have caused the wall to collapse. Strict liability also applies under this regulation and the judge accepted that the risk of injury created by its use on the unsupported wall was foreseeable to a skilled fire-fighter.
The defendants pleaded contributory negligence on the basis that all fire-fighters are expected to concern themselves with safety and look out for any developments that might threaten the safety of themselves, or anyone else fighting fire. Lord Drummond Young rejected the plea, describing the argument – i.e. that the claimants had failed to notice that what they were being asked to do was dangerous – as ill-founded.
He concluded: “The primary responsibility for safety and, in particular, carrying out dynamic risk assessments, fell on Watch Commander Clark as the officer in charge. That was an important part of his job.
“Both of the pursuers were allocated specific tasks, which clearly required their full concentration. In those circumstances it would not, in my opinion, be reasonable to expect them to double-check the overall risk assessment carried out by the officer in charge.”
Proposals to amend rules on strict liability in relation to certain health and safety regulations are currently under debate in Parliament.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This was not a criminal proceeding, it was a compensation claim.
The court of session is a civil court in Scotland.
The only reason public money would be spent is because the Fire Brigade defended the action.
I think the fire brigade are a publically funded body and are underwritten by local government rather than an insurance company, so compensation claims are paid out of public money.
The same is true of schools, police, NHS, and other publically funded bodies.
The compensation payment is in my opinion not wasted money, but paying lawyers to squabble over the amount in front of a judge is a waste of public money.
Is it really necessary to go to court in order to settle this claim? Surely fire fighters should be protected through insurance, especially if they are life changing injuries. The cost involved with courts, lawyers, etc must go into tens of thousands of pounds – what a waste of public money!
No public money was wasted here. The action was underwritten by their Trade Union and the only reason it ran was becasue the insurers and the Board refused to settle the case. Insurers will only pay out if there is negligence and they awere of the opinion there was none. Mr Dempsie is no longer able to work as a firefighter as a result of this preventabl incident – I cannot see why this action would be considered a waste of money.
INCREDIBLE!
I was a fireman for 30yrs. I trained fireman for years.
Our founding principle was to save life, PROPERTY and render humanitarian services. We imprinted in minds that you could not assume that a property was not occupied. Tramps seek refuge, Bodies have been found in grass fires. People use petrol for cleaning and repair electrical goods in garden sheds. There are well documented cases of children playing ‘house in the middle of a bonfire. What if they had missed a casualty