Duff v Highland and Islands Fire Board
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 27 September 1995 |
| Date | 27 September 1995 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
Outer House of the Court of Session
Before Lord Macfadyen
Scots law - fire services - duty to take reasonable care
A fire brigade did not, in operational matters, enjoy an immunity for negligence analogous to that which protected the police in relation to the investigation and suppression of crime.
Moreover, since the attendance of a fire brigade to put out a fire at a house was in performance of a statutory duty, rather than an exercise of a discretionary power, their duties were not restricted to merely ensuring that they did not add to the damage that the householder would have suffered had they done nothing.
Lord Macfadyen, sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session, so commented, assoilzing the Highland and Islands Fire Board in an action of reparation brought against them by Mrs Sheila Duff and others.
Section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947 provides: "(1) It shall be the duty of every fire authority in Great Britain to make provision for firefighting purposes, and in particular every fire authority shall secure: (a) the services for their area of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may be necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements … (c) efficient arrangements for dealing with calls for the assistance of the fire brigade in case of fire…"
Mr Edgar Owen, QC and Miss Jane Patrick for the pursuers; Mr Ian Mackay QC and Mr Jonathan Lake for the defenders.
LORD MACFADYEN said that the defenders had been called out to the house adjoining the pursuer's twice in one evening. They had left only to be recalled when it turned out that despite their first visit the neighbour's house was still on fire.
Upon their return, they had been unable to bring the fire under control, and it had destroyed the pursuer's house.
Her case against them proceeded on the basis that when they had left after their first visit, smoke had still been present in a bedroom in the neighbour's house, the source of which they had not investigated. That case had not been established by the evidence.
In the circumstances the other issues raised did not arise for decision, but it was appropriate that his Lordship should indicate his views on them.
The defenders had submitted that, if the pursuer established her case on the fact, she had nevertheless not established any novus actus interveniens on the part of the defenders that broke the chain of causation between the initial and primary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council
- John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and Others
-
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
...at first instance in fire brigade cases in which the Lord Ordinary took a different direction: Duff v Highlands and Islands Fire Board 1995 SLT 1362 and Burnett v Grampian Fire and Rescue Services 2007 SLT 61. In Duff the fire service attended a house fire and apparently extinguished it. Af......
-
Derek Burnett V. Grampian Fire And Rescue Service
...to deal with fires in the manner in which they carried out that task. The second case was Duff v Highland and Islands Fire Board 1995 SLT 1362 where Lord Macfadyen sitting in the Outer House observed obiter that he would have rejected a submission that the defenders did not owe to the owner......