#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort

Facts: These were three separate cases brought by the owners/occupiers of premises, alleging negligence on the part of the fire brigade. In the first one, a fire-fighter, while fighting a fire, had ordered that a sprinkler system be turned off. In the second case it was alleged that the fire brigade had left the scene of the fire before the fire was fully extinguished. In the third case, the fire was exacerbated due to the fact that the fire brigade had failed to ensure that there was an adequate water supply to the scene of the fire. The court had to decide, among other things, whether a fire brigade owed a duty of care to the owner/occupier of premises. The Court of Appeal held that although generally the fire brigade is under no duty to respond to calls or extinguish a fire, a duty was owed in the first case, where the actions of the fire brigade had positively exacerbated the situation, but no duty could arise from an omission to act.

Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council and others; Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Hampshire County Council and others; John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and others; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Great Britain) v West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority [1997] QB 1004