Mr C was working as a Prison Officer when one of the prisoners set fire to his cell. The normal procedure for this is to open a flap in the cell door with what is called an inundation key. The hose can then be placed through the flap and the fire extinguished without putting the officers in danger. Once the fire is extinguished the officers then open the cell door fully and remove the prisoner from the cell.

Mr C was coming to the end of his extended duty that day, having assisted on a previous unrelated incident.  He heard the alarm and went to assist. He was not the first on the scene and when he arrived, the officers had been unable to locate the inundation key. They had therefore had to open the cell door and rescue the prisoner whilst extinguishing the fire.

He already had a history of asthma. As a result of his exposure to the smoke, he was taken to hospital by ambulance and suffered an aggravation of his condition.

Surprisingly, the Ministry of Justice through the Treasury Solicitors, disputed liability for this claim as well as another claim brought by one of the other officers.  They defended the claim vehemently on the grounds that the inundations key was in the correct place, even though a number of officers all stated that was not the case.

 There was also an allegation that Mr C had not in fact been in the vicinity of the fire at all. This was despite evidence from the fire officer and the client's ambulance records to confirm that he was there and that he was affected by the smoke.

 This allegation was extremely upsetting for him and caused him considerable anxiety and distress.

He was therefore pleased and relieved to hear that the Treasury Solicitor had now, after a long and drawn out dispute, agreed to accept liability for the claim and made him a settlement offer that he was prepared to accept.

For further information please contact our Personal Injury Team on 0844 620 6200 or at blclaims@bllaw.co.uk