We have 3 appointed volunteer fire wardens in our workplace. We have check sheets that are maintained on a rota, checks cover emergency lighting, exits, extinguishers, fire routes, alarms, and any possible hazards.

The question arose; if in the event of a fire someone was to get injured or even lose their life, and it were found that an item checked off as OK in the check list, was actually faulty and could have played a part in causing said injury or death, would the warden whom initialled and dated the checklist be held accountable legally?

Obviously this was asked as none of the wardens are obliged to actually be wardens and being held accountable might sway their perspective on having that responsibility, or at least ask for more money added to their salary.

I was thinking they wouldn't be as long as they were seen to be making an effort to assess items listed on the list, however, this still means that by being a fire warden; if for whatever reason you did not perform a check properly you could be held accountable?

Can someone point out the facts to me here I was struggling to find anything online.

Thanks

Thanks for the advice, yes they are trained in what they need to look for. 

In the unfortunate event of death or injury it is the employer/premises occupier who holds statutory duty

Fire Wardens enacting checks on behalf of the duty holder do not acquire on any part of the liability

By example your receptionists duties in the event of an alarm is to take the visitor log to the assembly point, only this time they forgot so no one knew there was a visitor still present (who on leaving a meeting had stopped off to use the facilities) - is the receptionist liable for the death or injury to the visitor? We all know any claim will be against the company.

We really need to get some common sense back in to society and stop participating in the blame/claim game

Let’s get this into perspective: if a fire breaks out they will look at the causes of the fire first and foremost. That is where responsibility lies:  evacuation is just a form of mitigation of a hazardous outcome. You could just as well argue that people who wear high heels should be held liable as the slow down the evacuation process, which could cost lives. Not likely and anyway they don’t have any money and civil litigation always follows the money.