Fireman should not have saved driver's life, says fire authority

John Pennington was involved in a desperate bid to free a trapped driver following a multiple pile-up on the M25.

More stories...

• Advertising ban on junk foods to cut childhood obesity

• 'Only Blair and his chairman knew of secret Labour loans'

During the rescue attempt the experienced firefighter lost part of his left forefinger while using a power ram in a last-ditch effort to save the stricken motorist, who later died.

He was awarded compensation, but Surrey fire officials said Mr Pennington should never have been involved in the rescue attempt as he was not trained to use the equipment.

Appealing against the pay-out, Surrey Fire Service and Surrey County Council have spent thousands of pounds arguing firemen must put their own safety first, even if that means abandoning accident victims to their fate.

But judges at the Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed the claim as "unrealistic", saying Mr Pennington had "acted reasonably" in attempting to save the driver's life.

The 46-year-old arrived at the crash scene to find a critically-injured lorry driver trapped in his crushed cab.

After a colleague was "overwhelmed by fatigue and exhaustion", Mr Pennington stepped in to take over the power ram which was being used to straighten out the mangled metal.

He had never used the equipment before and his hand got caught in its workings, injuring his finger despite the fact he wore protective gloves.

Last year a judge awarded Mr Pennington, of Selsey, West Sussex, £3,115 compensation for the injury.

But county fire officials have since spent several times the sum on an unsuccessful legal bid to strip the firefighter of his pay-out.

Rejecting the appeal, Lord Justice Pill said: "Without any training or experience on the ram, Mr Pennington took over the urgent attempt to save life.

"I find quite unacceptable the authorities approach to their duties as employers in such circumstances."

Fire officials claimed it was Mr Pennington's decision to use the ram and that firefighters "must put their own health and safety first, however unpalatable the consequences." The judge added: "The implication is that Mr Pennington ought not to have taken over from the leading hand and should not have attempted to save the driver's life.

"Not only is it unrealistic to conclude that Mr Pennington should not have continued with the rescue attempt, but he did what was expected of him. On the evidence, he acted reasonably."

Agreeing that the authorities' appeal should be dismissed, Lady Justice Arden said: "It was a situation of great stress, with the life of a road traffic victim at stake.

"There is no doubt that the fire and council authorities must have expected firemen to be called upon to use this machinery in some fairly horrific road accidents.

"They must have expected him to do his best in this situation and he was entitled to training to help him do so without risk to himself.

"On that basis it was not only Mr Pennington's own devotion to duty, without more, that was causative of this injury. The lack of training played a role too."

Motoring campaigners condemned the authorities' stance and encouraged people to come to the aid of stricken drivers.

"Everyone should do their utmost to save an injured motorist and Mr Pennington should be commended for his actions, not dragged through the courts," said a spokesman for the Association of British Drivers.

"The fire and council authorities' approach is ridiculous. They should be encouraging people to save lives, not discouraging them."