Slater & Gordon represents police officers following a tragic explosion in a firework factory

The law requires all employers to protect the health and safety of their employees at work.  Those working in the emergency services are consequently in an unusual position.  Whilst employers are required to take all reasonable precautions to prevent their employees from being injured, members of the emergency services are required to deal with hazards and face up to dangerous situations.  A fire fighter will be ordered into a burning building; a Police officer to confront a rioting mob.  The nature and extent of the duty of care owed to members of the emergency services does therefore give rise to some tricky legal issues. 

These issues were central to a recent High Court trial* when Slater & Gordon acted on behalf of several police officers and fire fighters injured when attending an emergency situation during the course of their duties. 

On 3^rd December 2006 a fire broke out in a warehouse owned by a fireworks wholesaler.  A container full of fireworks caught fire resulting in a massive explosion.  Two fire fighters were killed and numerous others were injured, including several police officers.  Claims for damages were brought on behalf of the injured emergency services workers and their bereaved families.  The owners of the fire work factory were responsible for the accident and were guilty of numerous health and safety breaches, but they were bankrupt and there was no money available from them to pay any damages.  However, claims were also brought against the Fire Service as it was alleged that there had been serious failings in the way in which they dealt with the emergency situation. 

The primary case was that prior to the explosion taking place members of the emergency services should have been evacuated to a safe distance because of the explosion risk that arose from the fireworks stored on the burning site. 

The Fire Service argued that they could not be sued for operational errors during an emergency situation.  They also argued that these were the risks that members of the emergency services effectively signed up to when they joined. 

The Court rejected the Fire Services’ argument that they are immune to such claims.  The judge found that the Service did owe a duty of care to their employees in this context.  What is more, the Court held that the Fire Service also owed a duty of care to the Police officers working with them at the scene. 

The Court found that the fire service were aware of the explosion risk from fireworks if they caught fire.  Guidance had previously been issued on the issue.  Practices and procedures should have been put in place and officers trained to know how to deal with such situations.   If this had been done then those at the scene would have been able to recognise the true nature of the risk of an explosion and they would have made sure that the emergency services had all drawn back from the danger zone at a much earlier stage.  If they had done this then the two fatalities would have been avoided and none of the other injured officers would have been in the area when the blast occurred. 

The Court found that the Fire Service had been in breach of this duty of care and this resulted in the various deaths and injuries for which they had to pay damages. 

So what do we learn from this case? It no doubt remains the case that the Courts will generally be reluctant to hold a Police Force or the Fire Service liable for operational errors made by senior officers in the heat of an emergency situation.  However, those organisations are still under an obligation to ensure that they plan and prepare properly for the many dangerous situations their employees will be exposed to during the course of their duties.  Members of the emergency services are required to undertake hazardous activities in pressured and stressful situations and it is vitally important that they are given adequate training, guidance and equipment to ensure their safety whilst carrying out their vitally important public services. 

For over 50 years, Slater & Gordon Lawyers, formerly Russell Jones & Walker, has prided itself on providing great value legal services to police officers and personnel. For more information on the subjects covered in this article or other legal queries please contact us. Jonathan Belcham is the Personal Injury representative for GMP Police Federation.

0808 175 7805
www.slatergordon.co.uk/policelaw

@SG_PoliceLaw

* Wicker & Others –v- Martin Winter & East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service (2013)