Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431

Facts

• The defendant, Taylor, negligently caused a fire while using a blowtorch to remove paint from the fascia boards of his house.
• The fire spread to the roof, creating a dangerous situation.
• The claimant, Ogwo, was a professional firefighter who suffered burns while attending to and extinguishing the fire.
• The severity of the fire was exacerbated by Taylor's inadequate precautions when using the blowtorch.
• Ogwo brought a negligence claim against Taylor, alleging that Taylor's actions directly led to his injuries.

Issues

1. Whether a defendant who negligently creates a dangerous situation owes a duty of care to rescuers who are injured in the course of providing assistance.
2. Whether the foreseeability of rescue attempts extends the duty of care to professional rescuers such as firefighters.
3. Whether a defendant can rely on the defense of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) against rescuers.
4. Whether the actions of rescuers can break the chain of causation arising from the defendant’s initial negligence.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that Taylor owed a duty of care to Ogwo as a rescuer injured as a result of the dangerous situation created by Taylor's negligence.
• It was found to be reasonably foreseeable that both laypersons and professional rescuers may attempt to assist in dangerous situations caused by a defendant’s negligence.
• The standard of care owed to a rescuer is the same as that owed to the person initially put at risk by the defendant’s act.
• The defense of volenti non fit injuria did not apply, as rescuers rarely act with true voluntariness, particularly in emergencies.
• The claimant's actions did not break the chain of causation, as his response was reasonable and directly tied to the defendant’s negligent act.

Legal Principles

• A defendant who creates a dangerous situation through negligence will owe a duty of care to any foreseeable rescuers.
• Foreseeability of a rescue attempt applies to both professional and ordinary rescuers, as established in prior cases such as Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146.
• The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is unlikely to defeat claims by rescuers, given the nature of emergency situations and societal interest in encouraging rescue.
• The chain of causation remains unbroken by reasonable rescue attempts, and a defendant remains liable for resultant injuries unless a novus actus interveniens is established.
• Cases such as Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004 are distinguished where the actions of rescuers amount to a separate act of negligence breaking the chain of causation.

Conclusion

Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431 confirms that negligent defendants owe a duty of care to rescuers, including professionals exposed to foreseeable risks when responding to emergencies, and that defenses based on voluntary assumption of risk will rarely succeed in rebutting liability for injuries sustained during rescue.