Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

In negligence, reasonable care is assessed by balancing the risk, the precautions required to remove it, and the importance of the objective served. The imperative of saving life or limb may justify the assumption of a considerable, though not excessive, risk. An employer is not in breach merely because unusual emergency equipment cannot always be carried by its specially fitted vehicle. The question is whether reasonable provision was made in light of the emergency, the rarity of use and the resources reasonably available.

A firefighter was injured when a heavy lifting jack moved after the emergency vehicle in which it was being carried braked suddenly. The jack was required to assist a woman trapped beneath a vehicle. Its usual fitted carrier was properly being used elsewhere, so the fire crew transported it for a short distance on a Fordson vehicle which had no means of securing it.

The claimant alleged that his employer had negligently failed to provide a suitable vehicle and equipment for transporting the jack. Barry J dismissed the claim on 16 December 1953. The claimant appealed. The central issue was whether the council had failed in its duty of reasonable care by its emergency arrangements and the decision to use the available vehicle.

Appeal dismissed unanimously. Singleton LJ, Denning LJ and Morris LJ agreed that Barry J had been correct to find no breach of duty.

1. An employer must take reasonable care to provide proper appliances, maintain them properly and conduct operations without subjecting employees to unnecessary risk. That duty does not require the elimination of every risk inherent in fire-service work. The question is what a reasonable employer and station officer would do in the circumstances.

2. The assessment of negligence requires a balance between the risk, the measures needed to remove it and the end to be achieved. Singleton LJ applied the approach stated in Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd, [1946] 2 All ER 333. Denning LJ emphasised that saving life or limb may justify considerable risk, although a risk may still be too great to justify the attempt.

3. The emergency involved an immediate attempt to free a woman trapped beneath a heavy vehicle. Calls requiring the jack were extremely rare, and the vehicle normally fitted to carry it was properly engaged elsewhere. It was not unreasonable to refrain from maintaining a further fitted vehicle at all times, nor to delay the response while seeking assistance from another station. The risk in carrying the jack on the available vehicle was not so great as to make the attempted rescue negligent.

4. Morris LJ additionally held that it was not reasonably practicable to equip all vehicles for the jack's transport. The station officer's response accorded with proper fire-service practice in an emergency. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal: The claimant's appeal was dismissed: [1954] EWCA Civ 6.
• High Court (Barry J): On 16 December 1953, judgment was entered for the defendant council on the negligence claim.