Description
The Claimants were firefighters and police officers who were attending a fire when a steel shipping container filled with fireworks exploded. Two of the Claimants died and the rest were injured. Summary judgment had been obtained against the First Defendant, the owner of the site at which the fireworks were stored, who had already been convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. The Claimants argued that the Second Defendant was in breach of statutory workplace requirements and its common law duty. The Second Defendant argued that it was not liable because the workplace statutory duties could not stand in conjunction with the duties imposed on the fire service by the
Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and because of "fireground" immunity.
It was held that the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 did apply to the fire service regardless of the target duties set out in the 2004 Act. The presence of target duties did not preclude civil liability. The Second Defendant owed the relevant duties set out in the statutory workplace regulations.
In relation to fireground immunity it was held that firefighters accepted risks in the workplace, however they also expected those who owed them a duty of care to exercise reasonable care. Firefighters did not consent to risks which were avoidable by the exercise of reasonable care. Furthermore, the Second Defendant also owed a duty to police officers co-operating in fighting the fire. The proper approach was to consider the fair, just and reasonable test set out in
Caparo rather than to apply a blanket test of immunity.
The Second Defendant had breached its duty to the Claimants because it had not fully recognised the risk caused by the bulk storage of the fireworks.
