Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954] EWCA Civ 6

A firefighter was injured by unsecured equipment in a vehicle responding to an emergency. The court held the employer was not liable, as the urgent need to save a life justified a greater risk than in a commercial setting. This case established the importance of 'social utility' in assessing the standard of care in negligence.

Facts

A woman was trapped under a heavy lorry following an accident. The fire station, run by the defendants, Hertfordshire County Council, was called to the scene. This required the use of a heavy lifting jack. The specific vehicle designed to carry this jack was unavailable, as it was out on other duties. The fire officer in charge, Station Officer Richards, ordered that the jack be loaded onto a regular lorry, which was not equipped to secure it in place. The plaintiff, Mr Watt, was one of the firefighters in this lorry. On the way to the emergency, the lorry driver had to brake suddenly, causing the unsecured jack to roll forward and injure the plaintiff’s leg.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the defendant employer had breached its duty of care to its employee, the plaintiff. The question was whether the fire service was negligent in failing to provide a safe system of work by using an unsuitable vehicle to transport heavy equipment, considering the emergency context of the situation.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision, finding in favour of the defendants. The judges unanimously held that the employer was not negligent.

Singleton L.J.

Singleton L.J. emphasised the distinction between the duty of care in a commercial enterprise and that owed by a public service in an emergency. He noted the risk was real but had to be weighed against the ultimate purpose of saving a life. He stated, “The purpose to be served, if laudable, may justify the assumption of abnormal risk.” He concluded that the particular risk in this situation was not so significant as to render the defendants liable for negligence, especially given that the firefighters, including the plaintiff, understood and accepted the risks inherent in their work.

Denning L.J.

Denning L.J. provided the most influential reasoning, articulating the balancing exercise required when determining a breach of duty. He contrasted the goal of a commercial enterprise with that of a public service engaged in saving a life. He famously stated:

It is well settled that in measuring due care you must balance the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. To that proposition there ought to be added this: you must balance the risk against the end to be achieved. If this had been a commercial enterprise without any emergency, there could be no doubt that the servant would succeed. But the commercial end to make profit is very different from the human end to save life or limb. The saving of life or limb justifies taking considerable risk, and I am glad to say that firemen do not shrink from it.

Morris L.J.

Morris L.J. concurred with the other judges. He agreed that the emergency situation was a critical factor. He reasoned that while employers have a duty to avoid exposing employees to unnecessary risks, the concept of ‘unnecessary’ must be evaluated in the context of the specific circumstances. In this case, the risk was undertaken to potenitally save a life, and was therefore not considered an unnecessary risk for which the employer should be held liable. He concluded, “This was not, in my view, a case where the defendants were shown to have been negligent… The men, including the plaintiff, were prepared to take that risk.”

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The original judgment for the plaintiff was set aside and judgment was entered for the defendants (Hertfordshire County Council).

Source: Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954] EWCA Civ 6