The Negligence of Franchester Fire Service

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. In October 2012, the Franchester fire service was notified about the potential risk involved with Mr. Wentworth living conditions.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. Your honor of the 5th of November 2012, the greater Franchester fire authority set out to perform this duty. Having mislead the instructions the alarms and detectors were installed at no. 99 instead of no.49.

v. 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 Franchester fire service department was notified well in advance about the potential home fire risk at Mr. Wentworth’s house your honor the fire service department was also informed about Mr. Wentworth physical disability and his current lifestyle[1]. His physical disability and current lifestyle made him a high risk case. Your honor, the risk assessment report on document 3c also affirmed the urgency and critical nature of this case. In this respect, the installation of fire alarms and smoke detectors at no. 49 were order. However, the task was never fulfilled at the specified location. Your honor I would like to submit that this was a case of gross negligence by the respondent based on the critical nature of this matter. Franchester fire department should hence be held liable for the eventualities of their negligence.

Your honor on to my next submission, there was a foreseeable risk of a home fire. The fire service has an obligation to the people to assess and make the necessary installations to avert the risks to the community[2]. With your permission, I wish to assert that the negligence of the fire service caused distress on appellant leading to his untimely death. Your honor is submit to this caught that the fire caused damage to Mr. Wentworth’s property and items of massive sentimental value. To this account your honor, the complainant seeks compensation.

In my last submission your honor, the family and friend of Mr., Wentworth have suffered great pain following the loss of their son and friend. Beyond his physical disability Mr. Wentworth contributed to the lives of his family and friend significantly through his presence, love and care. The family is aggrieved over the sudden death of their son. Your honor with your permission, I wish to add that Mr. Wentworth, beyond his physical disability was a talented artist and musician. This constitutes a loss of talent of an unsurmountable economic value. Your honor the family is seeking justice over the loss of their loved one caused by the negligence of Franchester fire service. With your permission, I would like to provide insight on the neglect to the duty of care demonstrated by the Franchester fire services pertaining how they handled the case of Mr. Wentworth. The fire service is sworn to serve the American residents with the uttermost level of integrity and more so, to provide these services to those that are less capable[3]. The fire service employees completely neglected the values that make us all truly American by not attending to Mr. Wentworth’s case diligently.

As I conclude my submission, I would like to introduce a reference in the case of Caparo Industries Plc versus Dickman [1990] where the defendant lost his investment following the negligence of the company in preparing his accounts. The court ruling based on the foreseeability of the incident determined for there to be liability in the test of duty, there need to be proof that a definite class and time of liability is determined[4].

I move to make the case that the Franchester fire service is responsible for the untimely death of Mr. Wentworth. The actions of the fire service exacerbated the risk of a fire that cost the life of Mr. Wentworth. Given Mr. Wentworth’s disability the fire service ought to have acted with a greater sense of discretion. Rendering of services to people like Mr. Wentworth must be made a priority or we will continue the culture of discrimination. I move that this court holds Franchester fire service accountable for the eventualities that led to the demise of Mr. Wentworth.

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]

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

[2]

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

[3]

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

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