Suit against firm in charge of fire hoses dismissed
‘Even if Rhythme had breached
its duty of care, the fire was
caused by large combustible
materials stacked by Union
outside its warehouse, which
posed a high fire risk’.
Defences of
Negligence -
Contributory
Negligence
Partial defence: D partially liable for damage or
injury caused to the plaintiff if D
prove P contributes to his/her own
injuries by failing to take reasonable care
for his/her own safety & this failure
caused damage suffered.
P partly to blame for causing the damage
by refusing to take reasonable care for
its own safety, which caused the
damage.
"But a judge has ruled that the inferno had
blazed so out of control that even if nearby
hose reels were working, it would not have
made a difference."
Law of Torts -
Negligence -
Damage caused -
The ' But For' test
‘Would the damage have
happened but for the
defendant’s negligence?
Fire would have caused damages to P
even if hose reel was in working condition
as the flame was proven to have gone out
of control too quickly even with a working
hose reel, the fire would not be put out or
be brought under control.
P’s property would have been
damaged even without the D's
breach of duty.
Duty of
Care (DOC)
D (Rhythme
Technology) owed
the public a DOC, (Foreseeability)
D could foresee that the public would
rely on the hose in case of emergencies
and if the hose is not well maintained,
the result will be disastrous or life
threatening.
Breach of Duty of
Care - Standard of
Care
The appropriate standard
of care that the law should
impose on a fire hose
company is to provide
checks on a regular basis.
Though D owed the public
a duty of care, they did not
breach that duty.
“Rhythme's lawyer R. Nandakumar
countered that its staff had
conducted a physical test on the
hose reel nearest to Union's
premises in September 2009, and
found the various components of
the system were in order. The
results had been recorded. “