Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431
DUTY OF CARE – FORESEEABILITY OF HARM
Facts
The defendant had negligently started a fire at his home by using a blow torch on the fascia boards whilst attempting DIY home improvements. The plaintiff, a fire fighter, entered the property wearing protective clothing in order to extinguish the blaze. The fire was successfully put out, however the plaintiff suffered severe burn injuries from scalding steam which resulted from the fire.
Issues
The issue was whether injuries suffered by a fire fighter in the course of fighting a negligently started fire were foreseeable, and additionally whether there was any principle of public policy which prevented a fire fighter from claiming damages for injuries suffered in the course of their work.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that there was no special principle which prevented firemen from claiming damages for injuries which they incurred whilst fighting a fire which had been negligently started. The mere fact that they did this in the course of their work and in the provision of a public service did not automatically render the injuries outside the scope of the defendant’s duties. Moreover, the injuries were foreseeable as the defendant should have known that where a fire was started negligently, the fire brigade would be called and that fire fighters might be exposed to the risk of injury whilst putting it out. This being so, it did not matter that the specific nature or the severity or the injuries incurred in this case was not foreseeable.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case brief accurately summarises the decision in Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431. The core legal principles remain good law: a negligent tortfeasor owes a duty of care to firefighters injured whilst fighting a fire they negligently started, and the precise manner or severity of injury need not be foreseeable provided some personal injury is foreseeable. The decision has been consistently applied and cited in subsequent negligence cases and has not been overruled or materially qualified by later authority. The article remains accurate as a statement of the law on foreseeability of harm and duty of care in this context. Readers should note that the broader law of negligence, including the test for duty of care, has been developed and refined through later cases such as Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, which this brief does not address, but that does not affect the accuracy of what is stated about the Ogwo v Taylor decision itself.
