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

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

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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