Introduction to Fire Safety Management

Risk
ⴝ
 Likelihood 
ⴛ
 Severity
The cost incurred in averting the risk is not simply 
fi nancial but should include the time and effort required 
in implementing the precautionary measures. The result 
is a scale of risk v. cost as illustrated in Figure 1.21.
The judgment of risk v. cost must be made 
before
not after the injury, damage or loss is suffered.
Figure 1.21
The balance of risk against cost
Risk
Cost

---

Introduction to Fire Safety Management
20
Loss sustained as a result of the breach
The third and fi nal test of the tort of negligence is for 
the claimant to prove that injury, damage or loss was 
sustained as a result of the defendant’s failure to take 
reasonable care. It is important that the loss sustained 
is directly linked to the breach. Cases have been lost 
where the loss that was undoubtedly sustained had not 
been directly caused by the specifi c breach of duty.
The employer’s liability
Due to the nature of the common law relating to negli-
gence in the UK it is obvious that an employer is liable 
to be sued for compensation for any loss or damages 
suffered by his employees. It is for this reason that 
employers in the UK are obliged by law to hold com-
pulsory ‘employers liability insurance’. This insurance 
covers the employers for claims from their employees for 
up to £5 million. Employers will also take out public liability 
insurance to cover themselves from claims made by 
third parties who are seeking compensation for a loss, 
although this is not compulsory.
Vicarious liability
An important principle in negligence cases is that of 
vicarious liability. In essence this renders the employer 
directly liable for the actions of his employees.
The reason why this principle is applied is to allow 
the courts to order compensation from the employer 
who is generally in a much better position to be able to 
pay large amounts of compensation to the claimant.
To avoid being held vicariously liable, an employer 
must be able to demonstrate that the employee who 
acted negligently was doing so on his own volition.
The courts refer to the independent action by an 
employee as his being on a ‘frolic of his own’ and in 
these cases the employer cannot be held vicariously 
responsible.