A firefighter who was injured trying to save a man's life has had an appeal against his compensation award rejected by the Court of Appeal.
John Pennington, a Surrey firefighter, was injured when attending a serious road accident on the M25. He took over from a colleague who had become exhausted in an attempt to free a trapped lorry driver from his cab.
In trying to extract the critically injured man, Mr Pennington operated a piece of equipment called a ram, which is used for forcing objects apart. He had not been trained to use that particular item of equipment although it was of a similar make and model to a smaller ram on which he had been trained. As he positioned the ram, his hand slipped and his forefinger was severed when it was caught in the mechanism. Mr Pennington was initially awarded £3,115 in compensation for the injury, but his employers appealed on the basis that he had endangered himself.
The Court of Appeal judged that it was ‘unrealistic’ to conclude that Mr Pennington should not have continued with the rescue attempt. He did what was expected of him and, on the evidence, he had acted reasonably. The Court decided that it was reasonably foreseeable that the use of this heavier model of equipment might be required under exactly the circumstances that occurred in this case. Overall, the Court judged that Mr Pennington's training had been inadequate. Like other firefighters, he had been trained in a ‘relaxed atmosphere’ at the fire station. In the view of Lord Justice Arden, this did not constitute effective preparation for the stressful situation in which Mr Pennington found himself at the scene of the accident.
Surrey Fire and Rescue Service was also refused leave to appeal the case to the House of Lords.
