Ogwo v. Taylor, (1987) 98 N.R. 81 (HL)

• Case Date: November 19, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 98 N.R. 81 (HL)

Ogwo v. Taylor (1987), 98 N.R. 81 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Ogwo (respondent) v. Taylor (appellant)

Indexed As: Ogwo v. Taylor

House of Lords

London, England Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Templeman and Lord Ackner

November 19, 1987.

Summary:

The defendant occupier negligently started a fire under the roof of his house. The plaintiff fireman was scalded while putting out the fire in the attic through no negligence of his own. The fireman brought an action in negligence against the occupier for damages.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the occupier was negligent, but that the fireman's injuries were not foreseeable. The fireman appealed.

The Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1987] 2 W.L.R. 988 allowed the appeal and held the occupier liable. The occupier appealed.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.

Torts - Topic 60

Negligence - Causation - Foreseeability - An occupier negligently started a fire under the roof of his home - A fireman was scalded while putting out the fire in the attic through no negligence of his own - The House of Lords held that the risk of injury, including scalding, was a foreseeable risk of the fire and that the occupier was liable - See paragraphs 1 to 6.

Torts - Topic 77

Negligence - Duty of care - Relationship required to raise duty of care - An occupier negligently started a fire under the roof of his home - A fireman was scalded while putting out the fire in the attic - The House of Lords held that the occupier owed a duty of care to the fireman, because firemen are expected to respond to a fire and thus are so clearly and directly affected by the occupier's act that he should have had them in contemplation when he engaged in his negligent action - See paragraph 7.

Torts - Topic 8791

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Firemen - General - The House of Lords held that a person who negligently starts a fire may be liable for injuries suffered by a fireman who fights the fire whether the fire poses "ordinary" or "exceptional" risks of fire fighting - The House of Lords thus rejected the American "fireman's rule" that negligent fire starters are not liable for the injuries of firemen, who are hired especially to deal with fire fighting risks - See paragraphs 10 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Flannigan v. British Dyewood Co. Ltd., [1969] S.L.T. 223, appld. [para. 1].

Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] A.C. 837, appld. [para. 6].

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. (The "Wagon Mound" (No. 2)), [1967] 1 A.C. 617, appld. [para. 6].

Wagon Mound - see Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty.

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562, appld. [para. 7].

Merrington v. Ironbridge Metal Works Ltd., [1952] 2 All E.R. 1101, refd to. [para. 11].

Salmon v. Seafarer Restaurants Ltd., [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1264, appld. [para. 15].

Krauth v. Geller (1960), 157 A. 2d 129, not folld. [para. 18].

Walters v. Sloan (1977), 571 P. 2d 609, not folld. [para. 19].

Counsel:

[None disclosed.]

This case was heard at London, England, before Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Templeman and Lord Ackner, of the House of Lords.

On November 19, 1987, the judgment of the House of Lords was delivered and the following speeches were given:

Lord Mackay of Clashfern - see paragraph 1;

Lord Bridge of Harwich - see paragraphs 2 to 20;

Lord Elwyn-Jones - see paragraph 21:

Lord Templeman - see paragraph 22;

Lord Ackner - see paragraph 23.