Fire Marshall Legal Liability

[timfsa]

Hi Everyone,

Hoping someone can help me with a question I have had raised.

A potential new fire marshall has asked what legal liability they would have if they took up the role.

I think that as long as they act in the way in which they have been trained to do and don't go against any policies that the company implement they would not be considered legally if there is any subsequent ations. In much the same way as First Aiders are considered to be assisting in the saving of life, as long as they are not massively negligent.

Obviously they would need to stay within Article 23 of the RRO for General Duties of Employees, especially with respect to any extra duties they are assigned.

Opinions and any legal wordings/test cases that I am not aware of would be most appreciated.

Tim

[CivvyFSO]

I think you are spot on with your thoughts.

It is up to the RP to ensure that persons nominated to assist in evacuations are competent. It is up to the RP to ensure that staff are given appropriate training and that the procedures given are adequate. Now if the RP doesn't bother supplying training, and simply informs someone that they are the marshall, and they have to fight a fire etc then the RP has failed in his legal duty, not the 'marshall'. If the RP supplies the correct training, and gives rise to suitable procedures, and the marshall decided to completely go against the procedures, or simply doesn't perform the duties expected of him/her then there is a potential offence under article 32(10) of failing to comply with article 23. (As you point out)

There is also the more general duty of care to think about.

[Owen66]

Wouldn't this just be a simple vicarious liability issue - ie the employer would be responsible for the acts or omissions of the employee anyway

regards

Owen

[CivvyFSO]

Depends whether you are talking about an offence under the RR(FS)O or not.

[AnthonyB]

Indeed - we are mixing Criminal & Civil Law in these replies.

Civil Law- damage caused by act or omission of defendant (tort of negligence), burden of proof being a balance of probabilities, outcome compensation & costs to plaintiff if successful. 99% of the time a case would be against the employer via the principle of Vicarious Liability because they have the money, not the marshal

Criminal Law - offence under article 32(10) of failing to comply with article 23 (General duties of employees at work), burden of proof being beyond any reasonable doubt, outcome if guilty conviction of the individual and anything from an absolute discharge to fines to imprisonment based on the circumstances, sitting judge and if it gets to Crown Court or not.

[PhilB]

Why are we using 32(10) for a failure to comply with article 23 (employees duties)?.

If a fire marshall fails to carry out his duties would the offence not be covered by 32 (2)(a)?

I could see 32(10) being used if the employee did something silly outside his duites, but if he has specific duties as an employee 32 2(a) would be the more appropriate article to use.

Having said that the maximum penalty for failure to comply with that article is a fine not imprisonment.


Don't forget that the RP cannot use the fault of his employee as a defence by virtue of 32(11).

(11) Nothing in this Order operates so as to afford an employer a defence in any criminal proceedings for a contravention of those provisions by reason of any act or default of—

(a) an employee of his; or

(b) a person nominated under articles 13(3)(b) or 15(1)(b) or appointed under 18(1).

Also there would be no need for an employee to prove negligence if he was injured as a result of the employers failure to comply with the order.

If the employer fails to comply with the order and an employee is injured it confers a right of action on that employee in civil proceedings. i.e. the employee would not need to prove that the employer had been negligent.