Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] EWCA Civ 6

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] EWCA Civ 6; [1954] 1 WLR 835

Court of Appeal, 7 May 1954 — an employer’s duty of care when responding to an emergency involving danger to life.

Facts

William Frederick Watt was a firefighter employed by Hertfordshire County Council at Watford. On 27 July 1951 the station received an emergency call: a woman was trapped beneath a heavy vehicle about 200–300 yards away.

The station had a heavy lifting jack on loan from London Transport Executive. Calls requiring it were very rare. An Austin vehicle had been adapted to carry the jack, but it was legitimately away on other duties. The officer in charge therefore instructed a second team to bring the jack on the available Fordson lorry.

The Fordson had no fittings to secure the jack. The firefighters loaded it, and two of the men in the back attempted to hold it. Watt sat further forward. During the short journey, the driver braked suddenly, the jack moved and Watt’s leg was caught, causing serious injury.

Watt sued the council for negligence. Barry J dismissed the claim, and Watt appealed.

Issue

The council owed its employees reasonable care in providing equipment and organising their work. The question was whether using the available lorry, without fittings to secure the jack, breached that duty in the circumstances of this rescue.

Watt’s argument on appeal was that the council should have a properly adapted vehicle available whenever the jack was needed. Alternatively, the station should have called on St Albans, about seven miles away, although doing so would have caused an additional delay of around ten minutes.

Decision

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Watt’s appeal. Singleton, Denning and Morris LJJ agreed that the council had not failed to take the reasonable care required in the circumstances.

Reasoning

Singleton LJ accepted that firefighters were entitled to equipment as safe as reasonable care could make it. Their work involved risks, but that did not remove the employer’s duty. The situation had to be assessed as it confronted the officer: a woman was trapped nearby, a lifting jack was available, and waiting for another station would delay the rescue.

He rejected the suggestion that the council had to keep a specially adapted vehicle at the station at all times or leave the jack unused when that vehicle was away. There was no allegation that the driver had driven negligently or that the officer was personally negligent in giving his order.

Denning LJ explained that reasonable care required consideration both of the measures needed to remove a risk and of the purpose for which it was being taken. Saving life or limb could justify risks that would be unreasonable in an ordinary commercial operation undertaken for profit. Here, the risk was not so great that the rescue attempt should have been prevented.

He also stressed the limits of that reasoning. An emergency did not justify every danger. He used the example of emergency vehicles proceeding through red traffic lights to illustrate a risk he regarded as too great.

Morris LJ emphasised the unusual combination of circumstances: the jack was seldom needed, and its usual vehicle happened to be away. It was not reasonably practicable to adapt every vehicle or provide unlimited vehicles and space. Using the available equipment promptly was reasonable in the emergency.

Legal principle

The importance and urgency of the purpose being served form part of the assessment of reasonable care. Watt did not create a general exemption from negligence liability for rescue work. The council remained under a duty to take reasonable care; the court held that its arrangements and response satisfied that duty on these facts.

Judgment: Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] EWCA Civ 6.