0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Jack v Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service, District Judge

8 October 2002
The issues

Emergency Services – firefighter – risk assessment – trip. Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

The facts

The Claimant tripped whilst he was carrying a mattress downstairs during salvage operations after a fire. The usual procedure on such occasions would have been to throw the mattress out of a window. However, there was no window and the order was given to move the mattress to the first floor and throw it from a window there. The staircase between the attic and the first floor was steep, narrow and unlit without a handrail and with a sharp turn at the top. The staircase had electric cables and a hose reel trailing on it. Three firefighters were ordered to take the mattress downstairs. All had been trained in moving on staircases in the dark. The Claimant tripped and fell. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk and in particular, had breached Regulation 4(1)(b)(ii) Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

The decision

1. As a matter of fact, it was found that the Claimant had tripped on hose reel or a cable and not on the stairs.

2. The Claimant was highly trained and an experienced firefighter and was part of a team trained to deal with the routine hazards of carrying casualties downstairs in dark conditions.

3. The experienced crew had been aware of the risk and had assessed and had chosen to walk down the stairs without complaint.

4. The Court was not satisfied that lighting would have made any difference, or that the hose would have been a safer way of balancing the risk of a trip with a more serious risk of the fire starting again.

Claim dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up