Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1983 |
| Date | 1983 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Negligence - Duty of care to whom? - Fireman - Occupier's negligence causing fire - Fireman injured while attending fire - Whether occupier liable for damages
The plaintiff fireman attended a fire at the defendants' fish-and-chip shop, which had been caused by the failure of the defendants to put out a light under a chip fryer before closing the shop for the night. While in attendance at the fire, the plaintiff was ordered by a senior officer to use a ladder to obtain access to the second floor, via a flat roof. As the plaintiff stood footing the ladder on the flat roof an explosion occurred, caused by the heat from the fire melting seals on gas meters on the premises and allowing gas to escape. The explosion caused the plaintiff to be thrown to the ground and sustain injury. He brought an action for damages for personal injuries alleging that the fire had been started by the defendants' negligence and that he had been injured as a result of that negligence. The defendants denied that they owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
On the question as to the duty owed by an occupier to a fireman attending at his premises to put out a fire:—
Held, that notwithstanding the special training received by firemen to deal with the dangers inherent in fires, the duty owed by an occupier causing fire on premises to a fireman attending that fire extended to the ordinary risks and dangers inherent in a fireman's occupation and was not limited to a requirement to protect the fireman only against special, exceptional, or additional risks; that the fireman's special skills and training were relevant in determining liability but, where it was foreseeable that a fireman exercising those skills would be injured through the negligence of the occupier, the occupier was in breach of his duty of care; that as the fire had been caused by the defendants' negligence and since it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would be required to attend the fire and would be at risk of the type of injuries he received from the explosion which was caused by the negligence, the defendants were (liable for those injuries and damages were recoverable by the plaintiff post, pp. 1272D–G, 1273A–D).
Merrington v. Ironbridge Metal Works Ltd. [
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Donoghue v. Stevenson [
Hartley v. British Railways Board, The Times, February 2, 1981; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 67 of 1981,
Merrington v. Ironbridge Metal Works Ltd. [
Sibbald or Bermingham v. Sher Brothers,
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Crossley v. Rawlinson [
Hartley v. Mayoh & Co. [
Haynes v. Harwood [
Knightley v. Johns [
ACTION
By his statement of claim the plaintiff, Gary Thomas James Salmon, alleged that on March 10, 1977, a fire broke out at premises occupied by the defendants, Seafarer Restaurants Ltd., that he attended the fire in the course of his employment as a fireman, and that he was injured when, footing a ladder from a standing position on a flat roof at the premises, an explosion threw him to the ground. The plaintiff averred that his fall and the injuries sustained were due to the defendants' negligence.
The defendants, by their defence, denied that they were negligent as alleged, or further, that they were in breach of any duty of care owed to the plaintiff. By a third party notice the defendants claimed against the British Gas Corporation to be indemnified against the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the corporation were negligent in installing non-fire resistant gas meters in premises where there was a higher than normal risk of an outbreak of fire and that by reason of that negligence the corporation caused or contributed to the plaintiff's injuries. By a third party defence the corporation denied that they had been negligent and the claim against the third party was discontinued during the course of the trial.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
B. A. Hytner Q.C. and George Pulman for the plaintiff.
J. A. T. Loyd Q.C. and Rupert Jackson for the defendants.
Veronica Schoeneich for the third party.
WOOLF J. This action raises in acute form the question as to what duty an occupier who causes a fire on premises owes to a fireman who attends at the premises to put out the fire. The facts are largely agreed. The premises in question were occupied by the defendants and are at Cranbrook Road, Ilford, Essex. At those premises the defendants have a fish bar which conducts business very much in the same way as a fish-and-chip shop of the traditional sort conducts its business, and, in addition, there is a restaurant which provides meals on the premises. In the fish bar portion of the premises there is a fish fryer and a chip fryer. Those fryers use oil for the purposes of cooking. On March 10, 1977, the premises were left just after midnight and an employee of the defendants failed to extinguish one of the lights under the chip fryer with the consequence that, when the premises were vacated, the oil was continuing to be heated with the result that eventually the oil caught fire and, in turn, the premises themselves caught fire.
In addition to the defendants, the occupiers of the premises, the British Gas Corporation is made a third party to the proceedings because there was a gas supply to the fryers to which I have made reference and also a further gas supply to the premises, and there was an allegation made by the defendants that events which I must now recount were the responsibility of the third party.
The fire station is in close proximity to the defendants' premises and, when the alarm was given as a result of the fire, the fire appliances together with the officers were able to attend very promptly at about 3.40 a.m. The actual immediate fire in the vicinity of the fryers was quickly extinguished with the use of foam, or, at least, if it was not completely extinguished, was brought very much under control. It was then observed that there was a light on the second floor of the premises and, as there was a considerable amount of fume caused by the fire, it was decided by the senior fire officers present that access should be obtained to the second floor by ladder. In order to obtain access in this way to the second floor use was made of a flat roof to part of the ground floor of the premises and the ladder was placed on the flat roof so that an officer could climb the ladder and enter the second floor. It was necessary for another officer to foot that ladder and this job was given to the plaintiff. He was standing, footing the ladder, on the flat roof when suddenly there was an explosion, as a result of which he was thrown to the ground and sustained injuries.
The plaintiff, who is 33 years of age now, had been a fire officer for a number of years, 11 in total, and, because of the injuries he suffered, he eventually had to give up that employment. He was unemployed for a substantial period but he eventually obtained employment as a nurse. It is not necessary for me to go into details with regard to his injuries, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogwo v Taylor
...accord with those expressed in the latest authority directly in point, which is the decision at first instance of Woolf J. in Salmon v. Seafarer Restaurants Ltd. [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1264. The facts and the grounds of the decision are conveniently summarised in the headnote, which I quote: "The......
-
Ogwo v Taylor
...10 That approach by Nolan J. is however, in my judgment, extremely difficult to reconcile with the decision of Woolf J. in Salmon v. Seafarer Restaurants Ltd. [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1264. In that case a fire had been started in premises through the negligence of the defendants, the occupiers. The ......
-
White and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others
...place in English Law, the American "firemans rule" (see per Lord Bridge of Harwich at 449C), approved the decision of Woolf J in Salmon v Seafarer Restaurants 1983 1 WLR 1264 and specifically approved a passage in Woolf J's judgment where he said "there seems no reason why a fireman should ......
-
Steven Keating v Andrew Hurrell and Another
...Commission (1963) 2 QB 650; Chadwick v BRB (1967) 1 WLR 912; Harrison v BRB (1981) 3 All ER 679; Ogwo v Taylor (1988) AC 431; Salmon v Seafarer Restaurant (1983) 1 WLR 1264; and Jeffrey v Commodore Cabaret Ltd (1995) 128 DLR (4th) 535. Mr Cowen submits that the normal situation in which a d......