Wentworth vs. Chief Constable of Greater Franchester Fire and Civil Defense Authority

Please your lordship I am Mark Griffin senior counsel for the appellant accompanied by my learned junior counsel is Stacy Bale. May I also present to you my equally learned opponents Will Armstrong representing the senior counsel for the respondents and her junior counsel Sharma Moon?

Before I make my submission, would your lordship care if I present some facts pertaining to the matter of Wentworth vs Chief Constable of greater Franchester fire and civil defense authority. Your honor if you may allow me I would like to state the facts as follows.

i. Virgil Wentworth was a 40-years old and a heavy smoker

ii. In October 2012, the Franchester fire service was notified about the potential risk involved with Mr. Wentworth living conditions due to his failure to quit smoking or doing it outside.

iii. Having received the notice, the fire service requested for a home fire safety and risk assessment on the grounds of his physical disability and smoking problem.

iv. To this assessment, it was established that there was significant risk of a home fire to which an installation of alarms and detectors was ordered.

v. Your honor of the 5th of November 2012, the greater Franchester fire authority set out to perform this duty.

vi. The Franchester fire authority requested for a visit and risk assessment which was duly done and installation approved

vii. Having misread the instructions the alarms and detectors were installed at no. 99 instead of no.49.

viii. Your honor on the 28th November 2012, Mr. Wentworth’s house caught fire that cost him his life.

Your honor if you allow me, I move to make my submissions for this hearing.

Your honor with your permission I would like to submit to this court that the case does not a present novel set of facts. It is evident that there was no contractual relationship between the Franchester fire company and Mr. Wentworth. Hence, the case fell outside the law of tort on the duty of negligence. In such a case, Donoghue v Steven­son recognized that an incremental approach should be adopted to assess the duty negligence [1]. According to the case, certain bodies such as the police are excluded from the duty of care categories. But due to the wider community interests, ‘‘a duty of care is of­ten de­nied un­less there is a spe­cial re­la­tion­ship’’.  The key question in this case would be whether there was a special relationship between the two. It is evident that there was a continuing procession in installation of alarm in Mr. Wentworth homestead, Franchester did their part in ordering a risk assessment on the house and thereafter approving the installation. However, the social worker never followed up on the installation of the alarms, hence, it is evident that there are no special relationships in this case even under the incremental approach. Your honor, despite the Franchester fire company and Mr. Wentworth been in communication for a period of time, there was no contractual relationship between the two. The incremental approach should have been used but it does not support the existence of duty of care in this case [2].  

Your honor, on to my next submission, there is no proximities between the parties. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 case states that the duty of negligence is only applicable if there is proximity between the defendant and claimant [3]. The same does not dictate the presence of physical proximity but nearness to relations. In this case, there was no proximity between the two since they were just trying to contract a business but this was never complete.

Your honor, the last submission is that it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty of care in these circumstances[4]. Franchester Fire Company was dedicated in their work through the risk assessment process to responding to the fire breakout. The franchester fire company was committed to ensuring that the client was satisfied with their services. They ordered for the installation but unfortunately, there was a misread on the same. However, the social worker never followed on the same and the defendant never realized on the mistake they have made. Therefore, it is evident that it is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose a duty of care in these circumstances since the defendant was committed to offering quality services to their customers but there was a reasonable mistake in the process of service.  

I move to make the case that Franchester are not responsible for the duty of care in this case. The defendant was committed to providing quality services through risk assessments, installation and responding to the fire outbreak. In this case, there is no proximity, novel set of facts and it would be unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose the duty of care to the defendant. However, there was no follow-up from the claimant side which never informed them on time on the misread, with the mistake never corrected on time. However, I want to offer my condolences to the deceased family upon the loss of their loved one. 

Bibliography

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990]2 AC 605

Wentworth v Chief Constable of Greater Franchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

Michael and others v Chief constable of south wales police [2015] UKSC 2

Robinson v Chief  constable of west Yorkshire Police [2016] UKSC 4

[1] Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990]2 AC 605

[2] Wentworth v Chief Constable of Greater Franchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

[3] Michael and others v Chief constable of south wales police [2015] UKSC 2

[4] Robinson v Chief  constable of west Yorkshire Police [2016] UKSC 4