French & Anor v Strathclyde Fire Board [2013] ScotCS CSOH_3 (09 January 2013)

French & Anor v Strathclyde Fire Board [2013] ScotCS CSOH_3 (09 January 2013)

The defenders, through their incident commander, failed to exercise reasonable care by ordering the pursuers into a hazardous position under an unsupported gable wall, when the risk of collapse was foreseeable and the advantages of forcing the door were minimal. The accident was foreseeable and avoidable, and the defenders are liable for the pursuers' injuries.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_3
Parties
Pursuer: Ross French; Pursuer: Brian Dempsie; Defender: Strathclyde Fire Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (employer's Liability) / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Liability established against the defenders for breach of duty of care.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Foreseeability of Risk, Standard of Care for Firefighters, Dynamic Risk Assessment, Building Collapse Liability
Tort Employment Law Health and Safety Employer's Duty of Care Foreseeability of Risk Standard of Care for Firefighters Dynamic Risk Assessment Building Collapse Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ross French

Pursuer

Brian Dempsie

Pursuer

Strathclyde Fire Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (employer's Liability) / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their duty of care to the pursuers by exposing them to foreseeable risk of injury during firefighting operations.
  2. 2 Whether the risk of collapse of the gable wall was foreseeable to a skilled incident commander.
  3. 3 Whether the standard of care required the incident commander to avoid ordering firefighters into a hazardous position under the gable wall.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, through their incident commander, failed to exercise reasonable care by ordering the pursuers into a hazardous position under an unsupported gable wall, when the risk of collapse was foreseeable and the advantages of forcing the door were minimal. The accident was foreseeable and avoidable, and the defenders are liable for the pursuers' injuries.

Court Disposition

Liability established against the defenders for breach of duty of care.

Orders

  • Defenders found liable to pursuers for injuries sustained.
  • Quantum of damages to be determined at a later hearing.