“Emergency rescues justify higher risk-taking than normal circumstances.”
A fireman was injured when heavy lifting equipment was transported on an unsuitable vehicle to reach a road traffic accident where a woman was trapped under a car. The fire service had not waited for the proper vehicle due to the emergency.
Whether emergency services can be liable for negligence when taking calculated risks during rescue operations, and how emergency circumstances affect the standard of care.
The Court of Appeal found for the defendant fire service, holding that the emergency circumstances and rescue purpose justified the higher risk taken.
Established clear protection for emergency services acting reasonably in rescue situations. Demonstrates how social utility and emergency circumstances operate together to modify negligence standards in English law.
You're reading the free summary of Watt v Hertfordshire CC. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954] 1 WLR 835 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.