Locations
Two recent High Court cases involved neighbours suing neighbours over fire damage in their homes. Traditionally, the legal position was accepted that damage caused by accidental fire was covered by the Accidental Fires Act of 1943 (“the Act”) and no-one was held responsible for the damage.
The case of William Feeney –v- Alberto Andreucetti and Jenny Andruecetti and by order Michael Reilly trading as Elm Construction concerned a fire that broke out on the roof of the Andreucetti’s property as a result of work carried out by an independent contractor, Mr. O’Reilly.
The fire spread to the house next door and the neighbour, Mr. Feeney, argued that because the fire was caused by negligence it was not accidental and so the Andruecettis could not be protected by the Act. The Andruecettis argued that they could not be held liable for the negligence of Mr. O’Reilly.
Justice Noonan stated that the occupier is in control of his property and is responsible for what goes on there. He found that a fire caused by negligence, on the part of anyone except a stranger, cannot be accidental.
He held that the property owner was responsible for the fire caused by his contractor’s negligence. A full copy of the decision can be found here.
The Act was considered again in case of Declan Nugent –v- Marie Fogarty where a fire broke out in the attic of the Fogarty’s property as a result of plastic bags of clothing being placed too close to downlighter fittings.
Mr. Nugent, the Fogarty’s neighbour, sued the Fogartys and argued that because the danger of the downlighters was known to the Fogartys, they had a duty to keep the plastic bags away from the fixtures.
The Fogartys said that because the bags were not placed directly on the fixtures there was no intention to cause the fire and so it was accidental.
Justice Kearns found that the Fogartys were aware of the risk associated with the downlighters and still stored flammable material close enough to ignite.
He held that the Fogartys were responsible for the damage arising from their own negligence and that the Act could not be relied upon to absolve them. A full copy of the decision can be found here.