Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] 3 WLR 331 (CA)
Facts
A fire broke out at one of Capital & Counties’ premises. Firefighters arrived but switched off the sprinkler system, believing it would help fight the fire. This action caused the fire to spread and caused substantial property damage. The claim tested whether the fire brigade owed a duty of care when performing actions during fire-fighting.
Issue
Did the fire brigade owe a duty of care to property owners when attending and taking specific actions during a fire?
Decision
The Court of Appeal held that the fire brigade did not owe a general duty to attend fires, but did owe a duty not to make the situation worse once they acted. Turning off the sprinklers breached that duty.
Legal Principle
Public authorities are generally not liable for omissions but may be liable for acts that worsen harm during their response.
Importance
Distinguishes between acts and omissions.
Shows when duty arises from positive actions.
Important for understanding Caparo in public authority cases.
![McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL)](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/44ca5483023540b685861fd3eea6c595.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_654,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/44ca5483023540b685861fd3eea6c595.jpg)
![Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134 (HL)](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/11062b_d47fa422d26c45bbb7689aeba61f9ac8~mv2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_980,h_551,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/11062b_d47fa422d26c45bbb7689aeba61f9ac8~mv2.jpeg)
![Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572 (HL)](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/11062b_35dd5ca259d74a8392cee0e294d361a7~mv2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_980,h_653,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/11062b_35dd5ca259d74a8392cee0e294d361a7~mv2.jpeg)
Comments