Duty of Care to fire fighters

[Davo]

According to the RRO definitions, duty of care to relevant persons excludes fire fighters when they are fire fighting.
I seem to think there is case law that differs from this, can anyone give me a steer, please?

On the same vein, does the duty of mitigating the effects of fire include training our employees to fight fires? Or is it just ringing the FRS?

You may remember I work for a large police force with nearly 10,000 employees, 140 premises including garage workshops, not a sprinkler in sight (I'm working on it for new builds!)


I have to write force policy in regard to fighting fires and currently we don't give hands-on training in the use of extinguishers

davo

[kurnal]

Hi Davo
I dont know of any case law under the RRO there was a case brought many years ago under the H&SAWAct but as the RRO disapplies the H&SAWA in respect of basic fire precautions then it will no longer be relevant.

Article 4 defines general fire precautions and this includes in subsection f  measures to mitigate the effects of fire and training of staff.  
Article 13 (3)  requires the provision of firefighting equipment and to nominate persons to operate the equipment and to ensure adequate training for those persons.
Calling the fire service is in addition to this - and comes under article 13 (3) c.

So yes you need to decide who is to operate the equipment and provide them with training. In my opinion suitable training may involve basic awareness for most staff and hands on training  for fire wardens using an LPG based fire  simulator.

[Mike Buckley]

Just to add in the H&SAWA does put a general duty on the occupiers of premises to ensure that the premises and the means of access and egress are safe and without health risks as far as is reasonably practicable. As I read it this has nothing to do with basic fire precautions and is still valid.

If I remember correctly it was this section where the case was brought. This general duty has also allowed prosecution of firms where trespassers have fallen through the roof etc.

I do agree with kurnal on what you need to do about the training etc of your personnel. However at least you are dealing with a reasonably disciplined body where I am working its like herding cats!

[kurnal]

Mike

I think the law that extends the duty of care to trespassers is the occupiers liability act 1957 amended  1970ish. This duty of care requires the occupier to provide a reasonable degree of safety and security, in proportion to the risk and attractiveness of the site, eg buiding sites are a magnet for children to use as a playground so a very high standard of security is appropriate.

The other case regarding firefighters was if i recall about 1982 - was it in Scotland? Firefighters were injured in a fire and sought to sue the owner of the building for a lack of care in having the fire in the first place and exposing them to danger, and secondly for failure to maintain fire precautions which may have protected them. I think the case was thrown out because the judge said the occupier had no control over the activities of the firefighters engaged in firefighting. If I have got this totally round my neck  please correct me!!!

[CivvyFSO]

Davo

I always recommend giving all staff basic awareness. Extinguishers are supplied for escape purposes also, and as such someone may have to use them, so should have an idea of how they work and their suitablilty for different fires. Another area I tell people to consider is; if some untrained person hurt themselves by using an extinguisher incorrectly, what would happen if they decided to make a claim?

It is suggested in the new guides also that basic familiarisation takes place for all staff and marshalls etc get more detailed training.

I would also say that the "duty to mitigate" does not just involve ringing the FRS. Apparently about 80% of fires in commercial buildings are dealt with by employees and unreported. If all those people were instructed to simply walk away from any fire then the FRS would have a whole new workload to contend with and I am sure insurers would not be happy.

The easy way to do it is to nominate marshalls, train them properly, and give the marshalls responsiblity for passing on basic use to other staff. Oh, and keep records to prove it all of course.

Now, purely on the legislative side of it. If you had a sufficient number of marshalls, and they were all sufficiently trained on extinguishers, I would only 'recommend' that the remaining staff are trained. Certain extenuating circumstances may warrant further staff training, but if you have good means of giving warning, good means of escape and good procedures/training etc then it could be included in your RA that these people should never be anywhere near a fire.

[wee brian]

I think we are using the wrong language here chaps.

The Order excludes fire fighters (whilst fire fighting) from being a relevant person. Thus the FRA and the Preventative and Protective Measures etc need not cover the safety of firefighters.

Of course there is a duty to maintain fire fighting kit and kit installed to protect fire fighters.

The term Duty of Care is something quite different and relates to civil law.

If you have a duty of care for somebody,  you fail to act on it and that somebody suffers as a result then they can claim damages.

Most of the "rules" relating to duties of care were established in common law but some of them are set out in statutes (such as the Occupiers Liability Act)

What this all means is that if you do something daft and it could be reasonably forseen that somebody could get hurt or suffer financially from that act then you have a duty not to do it.

I expect if you do a search on GOOGLE for "duty of care" you will probably find a better explanation than mine.

[russpc]

Kurnal, I think the case you are referring to, and one which is relevant to Wee Brian's post may be Salmon v Seafarer Restaurant 1983.

Basically the case shows that an occupier owes the same duty of care (under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957) to a fireman as he would to any other he would any other visitor to his premises.

[wee brian]

Sounds about right - the Fire safety order won't change that

[Tom Sutton]

More info if you are interested at http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/neg14.htm/file-63.html

[messy]

Kurnal:

I also remember a legal case following job in a bonded warehouse in Scotland around that time where negligence was given to be a contributory factor in the cause of the fire.

During the job, a firefighter(s) suffered a serious injury (or perhaps death) as their escape route was cut off by fire. The legal case surrounded the issue that if the owner hadn't been negligent, there wouldn't have been a fire and the FFs would not have been injured/killed.

However the judgement went against the FFs as the Judge(?) said that it was a FFs absolute duty to protect his escape route, and in essence, they - the FFs- had failed to do this.

I thought this was called the Shear Bros case (or similar) but I can't find anything on Google under that name.

Like Kurnal, I apologise if me memory has let me down, but this is how I believe the case went, but I can't be 100% certain

Can anyone help on this??

[John Webb]

I think it was 'Shere Brothers', and recall it involved a warehouse. Possibly a flammable lining on a first-floor corridor?

[Midland Retty]

As someone already mentioned - the original question you refer to is the "duty to protect relevant persons" issue.

Whilst the RRO excludes this for firefighters when firefighting you must maintain any equipment provided for the protection of firefighters (if you have any such provision installed)

[toidi]

I think the fire in question was the Kilbirnie street fire in glasgow in 1972,which was owned by Sher brothers.
7 firemen died at the incident and if my memory serves me right, some fire exits were padlocked from the inside which stopped crews escaping and was a contributory factor in some of their deaths.
the case went to court concerning the locked exits and i think the short of it was the judge ruled that firemen should have maintained their own egress from the building and not relied on fire exits!
I hope this is an accurate although brief synopsis and if not, I apologise.