Can you be charged for services you did not use or ask for ?

ScouseMouse

Following on from a thread I noticed somewhere, here is an interesting scenerio.

A car ends up in a field.

Somebody called the fire brigade, who were not needed, and and did nothing, and now a large bill has been issued for attendance. Well, if the car owner never called them, and, they were not needed, is it possible for the car owner to be liable for something they never asked for or needed?

Note. Its not a real situation for me or anyone I know, I just thought it raised an interesting point. Thanks

IsaacWunder

superscouse wrote: »

Following on from a thread I noticed somewhere, here is an interesting scenerio.

A car ends up in a field.

Somebody called the fire brigade, who were not needed, and and did nothing, and now a large bill has been issued for attendance. Well, if the car owner never called them, and, they were not needed, is it possible for the car owner to be liable for something they never asked for or needed?

Note. Its not a real situation for me or anyone I know, I just thought it raised an interesting point. Thanks

Yes, you would be charged. The person who caused the accident has a duty of care towards, and is liable to, any rescuers, so long as it's foreseeable.

If you spin off and crash your car into a field, and the fire brigade show up, it's entirely foreseeable that someone would call 999 and they would send a fire engine, making the driver liable. If 999 sent the bomb squad, on the other hand, that wouldn't be foreseeable, so you wouldn't be liable for the army's expenses.

A good everyday example is if you got stuck driving and a passing tractor that saw you and came to rescue you got stuck also. At this point you'd be liable for both the recovery of your own vehicle and the tractor that came to rescue you.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Yes, you would be charged. The person who caused the accident has a duty of care towards, and is liable to, any rescuers, so long as it's foreseeable.

I wouldn't call it forseeable for someone to request the attendance of the fire brigade if they were clearly not needed.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Carawaystick

If the bill went to the owner rather than the driver, it's hard to see how any contract is valid.

IsaacWunder

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the bill went to the owner rather than the driver, it's hard to see how any contract is valid.

This is tort, not contract.

alyssum

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Yes, you would be charged. The person who caused the accident has a duty of care towards, and is liable to, any rescuers, so long as it's foreseeable.

If you spin off and crash your car into a field, and the fire brigade show up, it's entirely foreseeable that someone would call 999 and they would send a fire engine, making the driver liable. If 999 sent the bomb squad, on the other hand, that wouldn't be foreseeable, so you wouldn't be liable for the army's expenses.

A good everyday example is if you got stuck driving and a passing tractor that saw you and came to rescue you got stuck also. At this point you'd be liable for both the recovery of your own vehicle and the tractor that came to rescue you.

how does foreseeable come in there. Would the car driver have to have forseen he might get stuck or that a tractor would rescue him? T o forsee getting stuck would he have to have been driving by choice where it happened? Say a flooded road rather than where it would not be reasonable to forsee getting stuck?

Or should we forsee the possibility every time we drive?

flyingsnail

Fire Services Act, 1981

35.—(1) The expenses of the council of the county of Dublin as a fire authority shall be charged on the county exclusive of the borough of Dun Laoghaire.


(2) The expenses, as a fire authority, of the council of any other county in which there is a borough or urban district, the corporation or council of which is for the time being a fire authority, shall be charged on the county exclusive of any such borough or urban district.


(3) A fire authority shall be entitled to charge users or beneficiaries of a fire service for services which it provides.

Cody Pomeray

The OP says that no service was provided.

Combining the fact that the fire services were not required, with the fact that our hypothetical motorist did not make the phone call, leaves me bewildered as to why the fire service would be charging the motorist.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

IsaacWunder

alyssum wrote: »

how does foreseeable come in there. Would the car driver have to have forseen he might get stuck or that a tractor would rescue him? T o forsee getting stuck would he have to have been driving by choice where it happened? Say a flooded road rather than where it would not be reasonable to forsee getting stuck?

Or should we forsee the possibility every time we drive?

In making its assessment as to the duty owed towards a stuck rescuer, the court would only examine events from the time that the driver needed rescue.

Considerations as to whether the driver foresaw becoming lodged in the mud (such as the example you give of the road being flooded) are irrelevant once it becomes clear the driver is stuck and needs assistance.

This is because the duty of care that is owed to rescuers is imposed on public policy grounds, the logic being that rescuers perform a valuable service in society and should be encouraged.

Most arguments about foreseeability as to whether the rescuer should be able to recover damages thus revolve around whether the negligent party (the motorist) ought to have foreseen the existence of a rescuer. Of your examples, this would be where a tractor would rescue the motorist.

Thoie

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Considerations as to whether the driver foresaw becoming lodged in the mud (such as the example you give of the road being flooded) are irrelevant once it becomes clear the driver is stuck and needs assistance.

What if I drive into some mud, get stuck, but am not in need of assistance? For example, I head up my brother's driveway, get stuck halfway up, but it's grand, I'll just abandon the car there and get it tomorrow when it's dry? I don't need any assistance, because I know I'm not in anyone's way, and I magically know that road will be dry tomorrow, and I can just walk the rest of the way.

Driveby Dogboy

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

wouldnt like to be living in that house, if anything ever did happen

IsaacWunder

Thoie wrote: »

What if I drive into some mud, get stuck, but am not in need of assistance? For example, I head up my brother's driveway, get stuck halfway up, but it's grand, I'll just abandon the car there and get it tomorrow when it's dry? I don't need any assistance, because I know I'm not in anyone's way, and I magically know that road will be dry tomorrow, and I can just walk the rest of the way.

If your brother's driveway is a private road then it wouldn't be foreseeable that a third party would come to rescue you, so you wouldn't have a duty of care towards them.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Del2005

IsaacWunder wrote: »

In making its assessment as to the duty owed towards a stuck rescuer, the court would only examine events from the time that the driver needed rescue.

Considerations as to whether the driver foresaw becoming lodged in the mud (such as the example you give of the road being flooded) are irrelevant once it becomes clear the driver is stuck and needs assistance.

This is because the duty of care that is owed to rescuers is imposed on public policy grounds, the logic being that rescuers perform a valuable service in society and should be encouraged.

Most arguments about foreseeability as to whether the rescuer should be able to recover damages thus revolve around whether the negligent party (the motorist) ought to have foreseen the existence of a rescuer. Of your examples, this would be where a tractor would rescue the motorist.

That logic would be OK if it was the rescuer supported the application of a charge.

From talking to some fire people they are amongst the biggest haters of this stupid charge as it means people don't call for a chip pan/chimney fire, which can easily be extinguished by a fire person(s), but wait till the house is on fire and it now needs 2 or 3 appliances to contain it from spreading to the neighbouring properties