A fire that spread between adjoining homes in Ballybrack was not an “accidental” fire under the Accidental Fires Act 1943 because it was caused by negligence, the High Court has ruled.
The judgment, delivered by Kearns P. on 30 July 2015, concerns a fire on 27 July 2010 at the defendant’s home at 126 Coolevin. It spread to the adjoining home at 125 Coolevin, owned by the plaintiff. The parties had agreed damages of €96,748.43, but the issue addressed in this decision was whether the Act barred the claim despite an earlier finding of negligence.
The court had heard evidence from the defendant, her daughter and experts, and had already ruled that the fire was caused by the negligence of the defendant or her daughter. Plastic bags containing clothing were kept in the attic near downlighter fittings. Heat from a fitting ignited a bag. The court said the bags had been placed there by the defendant or her daughter, and that both had been warned about the danger of leaving flammable items near the fittings.
After that negligence finding, the case was adjourned for legal submissions on the Act. The plaintiff argued that a fire caused by negligence was not a fire “accidentally occurring” within the meaning of section 1. The defendant argued that an unintended fire could still be accidental even if negligence contributed, and pointed to the bags’ possible movement over time and the light being left on as intervening events.
The court accepted the plaintiff’s interpretation. Referring to earlier High Court decisions in Feeney v Andreucetti and Ramblers Way Ltd. v Mr Middleton Garden Shop Ltd., it said negligence took a fire outside the Act’s protection. It found no compelling reason to depart from those decisions and rejected the argument that this interpretation left the Act with no practical application. Fires not caused by negligence could still fall within its scope, the court said, giving examples such as weather or animals interfering with wiring.
The court said it did not matter whether the bags had been placed directly on top of the downlighters or nearby. The defendant knew of the fittings’ tendency to overheat and flammable material was stored close enough to ignite. It concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed.
The judgment resolves the statutory-immunity issue and states that the claim succeeds. It does not set out a separate final order for payment of the agreed damages.