It is tort orthodoxy that the private person on the Clapham omnibus owes no legal obligation to rescue another passenger who he realizes is about to become caught in the bus’s automatic door. Ramblers are free to stroll on the South Downs without being burdened by the worry that they might be subjected to a duty to shout a warning to a daydreamer wandering towards the cliff edge.1 It is not a tort for a stranger to watch as a child drowns in a puddle. The general rule that underpins this orthodoxy, derived from the rugged individualism that spawned much of English tort law, is subject to well-known exceptions. For instance, the bus driver will be obliged to take reasonable care to rescue the passenger trapped in the door, even if the passenger became trapped without any fault on the part of driver or bus. The ramblers may be obliged to make a reasonable effort to shout a warning if, for instance, they occupy the cliff-top field and the daydreamer is a lawful visitor. The child in the puddle will have an action against one of its parents or teachers that fails to make a reasonable rescue attempt. The issue this article considers is how far the duties of care that professional, publicly-funded, emergency services2 owe to those who are in need of their assistance3 should be modelled on this orthodox pattern of duties of private citizens. The aim is to provide an analytical framework which will assist in answering questions such as: Is the fire service free from liability if it leaves the bus passenger trapped for longer than necessary because a fire officer negligently selects an inappropriate method of cutting through the door? Are coastguards free to look on as daydreamers plunge? Does the Chief Constable have to pay damages4 if one of his constables watches a child drown in a puddle? The article is divided into three distinct parts. The first part considers the basis for imposing duties on the emergency services that