Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, an employee of the Fire Service under the control of County Council A and stationed at Fire Station A, suffered a serious injury on 27th July, 1951. The injury occurred during an emergency response to a call involving a woman trapped under a heavy vehicle located approximately 200 to 300 yards from Fire Station A. The emergency required lifting apparatus, specifically a jack on loan from Entity A, which was normally transported by a designated vehicle (Vehicle A). On the day in question, Vehicle A was unavailable, and the jack was instead transported on a different vehicle (Vehicle B) which was not fitted with proper securing mechanisms. During transit, the jack shifted when the driver applied the brakes suddenly, causing the Plaintiff's leg to be caught and severely injured.

The Plaintiff brought an action against County Council A claiming damages for negligence. The claim alleged that the defendants failed to properly secure the jack, knowingly transported it on an unsuitable vehicle, permitted the Plaintiff to ride on the vehicle carrying the unsecured jack, and failed to provide adequate supervision during loading.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Barry, heard the case and on 16th December 1953 ruled in favour of the Defendants, finding no negligence. The Plaintiff appealed this decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendants were negligent in failing to provide proper means to secure the lifting jack during transport.
2. Whether the Defendants were negligent in permitting the Plaintiff to ride on the vehicle carrying the unsecured jack.
3. Whether the Defendants breached their duty of care by not having a vehicle permanently fitted to carry the jack or by failing to arrange alternative transport from a more distant station.
4. What is the scope and extent of the employer’s duty of care to employees engaged in inherently risky emergency services?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendants owed a duty to provide a vehicle properly equipped to carry the jack at all times.
• It was negligent to transport the jack on a vehicle without securing mechanisms, exposing the Plaintiff to unnecessary risk.
• The Sub-Officer in charge should have arranged for the jack to be transported from a different station, even if this caused a delay.
• The risk of injury from transporting the jack unsecured was foreseeable and avoidable, thus constituting negligence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The emergency nature of the call justified the use of the available vehicle and equipment without delay.
• The Defendants had fulfilled their duty by providing reasonable equipment and allowing the exercise of discretion in emergencies.
• The risk encountered was inherent to the Fire Service and did not exceed the normal risks assumed by employees.
• It was not reasonably practicable to have multiple vehicles fitted to carry the jack at all times.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that employment in the Fire Service inherently involves risk. The emergency nature of the incident required prompt action to save a life, justifying the use of available equipment and vehicles even if not ideal. The Defendants' duty was to provide reasonable care, which included supplying proper appliances and maintaining them, but did not extend to guaranteeing that a vehicle fitted specifically for the jack was always available.

The court considered the practicality of maintaining a vehicle permanently fitted for the jack, concluding it was not reasonably practicable given the rarity of such emergencies and resource limitations. The decision of the Sub-Officer to use the available vehicle and take the jack on a short journey was consistent with Fire Service practice and reasonable under the circumstances.

The risk of injury was not attributable to negligence but was an unfortunate consequence of an emergency response. The court balanced the risk against the important objective of saving life, finding the risk taken justified. The absence of securing means on the vehicle was not deemed a breach of the duty of care given the context.

Consequently, the court upheld the trial judge’s finding that there was no negligence on the part of the Defendants.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The court held that the Defendants were not negligent in the circumstances. The decision confirms that employers in emergency services owe a duty of reasonable care that takes into account the nature of the service and the urgency of the situation. The ruling emphasizes balancing risk against the critical objective of saving life, recognizing that some risks are inherent and justifiable in emergency contexts. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.