In North Rhine-Westphalia, the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) issued a ruling regarding free-swing door closers on doors to private rooms in care homes.
The claimant objected to the provision in the building permit granted, which stipulated that, in accordance with the State of North Rhine-Westphalia’s ‘Guideline on Building Control Requirements for the Construction and Operation of Facilities Providing Care and Support Services’ of 17 March 2011, free-swing door closers must be fitted to doors leading to private rooms (Note: the requirements relate to the floor plan design and the fire safety concept).
The court did not uphold the claimant’s case and dismissed the action, stating (in part):
“The automatic closing of doors to private rooms in the event of a fire can thereby effectively help to ensure that residents who are unable or only partially able to rescue themselves, and who are not in the room where the fire has broken out, from fire and smoke until the arrival of fire and rescue personnel, and that the escape routes themselves remain free of fire and smoke, so that rescue by others can take place as quickly as possible.
The fire service’s statement makes it clear that rescuing five or more people from a smoke-filled area is a task that is almost impossible for rescue personnel to manage. Free-swing door closers on the doors to private rooms can therefore help to save as many people as possible in the event of a fire, thereby serving to protect every single resident.
During the oral hearing before the Administrative Court, the representative of the fire service described the risk that a person in whose room a fire broke out would be unable to leave it independently solely because of the free-swinging door closer as theoretical. She stated that she was not aware of this theoretical risk ever having materialised. Nor did the claimant cite any such case.
Against this background, the requirement to fit the doors of private rooms with free-swing door closers appears to be proportionate, given the objectives of preventive fire safety pursued thereby, even when considering the residual risks to individual persons in a specific fire scenario. The claimant’s objection that the life of the person in whose room a fire breaks out is being ‘sacrificed’ in favour of the lives of the other residents is beside the point.”
“Decision of the Higher Administrative Court of Münster of 4 June 2020 – 10A2913”