Watt v Hertfordshire C. C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0507-7 |
| Date | 07 May 1954 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0507-7
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Singleton
Lord Justice Denning, and
Lord Justice Morris
Counsel for the Appellant: MR G.S. WALLER, Q.C., and MR H. B. GRANT, instructed by MR Denis Hayen, LL. B., Agent for Messrs F.S. Ellis ' Co., Watford, Herts.
Counsel for the Respondents: LORD HAILSHAM, Q.C., and MR ROLAND BROWN, instructed by Messrs Berrymans.
He claims damages for nogligence. His case is that his employers, the Hertfordehire County Council, under-took to exercise the care which they owed to him and to other men employed in the Fire Service, and he gives Particulars of Negligance to which I shall refer in a moment. It is better that I should state first how the accident occurred. There are always some firemen on duty at the Fire Station at Watford, and on the 27th July, 1951, there was received at the Fire station an emergency call, and that call was to the effect that there had been an accident, and that a women was trapped under a heavy vehicle at a point not very far away from the Watford Fire Station; It one 200 or 300 yards away. in view of the nature of the emergency the officer in charge, Sub-Officer Richards, gave directions that two teams of men should go, and he himself went with the first team. It was clear that there might be need for lifting apparatus of some kind, and there was at the Watford Fire Station a jack capable of Lifting or raising heavy wedghts. The Jack did not belong to the Fire Service; It was the property of the Transport Board, whose practice it is to lend out Jacks of this kind to various Fire Stations, and perhaps to other bodies, so that they can be on call in case of need. Thus the Jack was on loan to the Nertfordshire County Council at this particular station. It is only on very, very rare occasions that there is an emergency call requiring the services of a jack of this kind. The Plaintiff, Mr Watt, had been in the Fire service in Hartfordshire since the year 1939, and he had only known of one emergency
The employee in this case was a member of the Fire Service, who always undertake some risk - but, said Mr Baker, not this risk. Is It to be said that If an emergency call reaches a Fire Station that the one in charge has to ponder upon the matter in this way: Must I send out my men with the lifting Jack in those circumstances, or must I telephone to St....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lian Soon Hing Shipping Co; Ting Jie Hoo
-
Smith v Ministry of Defence
...in performing them." This was subject to two qualifications: first, the "further dimension" identified by Denning LJ ( Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835, 838): "It is well settled that in measuring due care you must balance the risk against the measures necessary to elim......
- Tennant v Direct Line Insurance Plc
-
King v Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust
...However, there is a further dimension which is particularly applicable to the statutory services. As Denning LJ put it in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835 at p 838: "It is well settled that in measuring due care you must balance the risk against the measures necessary t......
-
For all (Hu)mankind? The intersection of mental capacity, informed consent and contract law with U.K. space law
...Re (1890) L.R. 44 Ch. D. 94.Ryder v Wombell (1868) L.R. 3 Ex. 90.Senteges v The Netherlands (2002) 27677/02.Watt v Hertfordshire. CC [1954] 1 WLR 835.Zehnalov´a and Zehnal. Czech Republic (38621/97) 2002.EU RegulationsRegulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council o......
-
Doctors Are Aggrieved—Should They Be? Gross Negligence Manslaughter and the Culpable Doctor
...calculated risks in difficult circumstances with limited time to make full assessmentshas long been recognised. See Watt v Herts CC [1954] 1 WLR 835.37. It is suggested negligence protects against gross negligence, see later Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB428; Rose (n 23......
-
Legislating Dangerously: Bad Samaritans, Good Society, and the Heroism Act 2015
...(in Sutton vSyston Rugby FC Ltd29 (Sutton), andReynolds vStrutt & Parker LLP30 (Reynolds), respectively). Breach is a nuancedenquiry.27 [1954] 1 WLR 835 (CA).28 Written Evidence submitted by the Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service, n 13 above, para 10.29 [2011] EWCA Civ 1182.30 [2011] EWHC 226......
-
Libel: Its Purpose and Reform
...untrue statements of fact, Reynolds takes134 Daborn vBath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333, Watt vHertfordshire County Council[1954] 2 All ER 368,Tomlinson vCongleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47.Compensation Act2006, s 1.135 Latimer vAEC Ltd [1953] AC 643.136 Draft Defamation Bi......