The High Court ruled that the owners of a house where a fire began were liable for damage to their neighbour’s home after a contractor negligently carried out roof work. It held that the Accidental Fires Act 1943 did not protect the owners because a fire caused by negligence was not “accidental” for the purposes of the Act.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 10 February 2015, arose from a fire on 24 January 2012. The plaintiff owned and occupied number 44 Farmhill Road, Goatstown, Dublin 14. Alberto and Jenny Andreucetti owned and occupied the adjoining semi-detached house, number 46. Contractor Michael Reilly was working on number 46’s roof when the fire broke out shortly after the work was completed. It spread to number 44 and substantially damaged both properties.
In a related case, Andreucetti v Reilly, the judge had found in December 2014 that Mr Reilly caused the fire through negligence. The parties accepted that Mr Reilly was an independent contractor retained by the Andreucettis. The dispute in this case was whether the owners could still be liable for the fire’s spread.
The Andreucettis argued that they should not bear responsibility for an independent contractor’s negligence. Their counsel also relied on the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995, which exempts occupiers from liability in certain circumstances involving dangers caused by independent contractors. The plaintiff argued that the common law made property owners liable for fire escaping from their property unless the statutory defence for an accidental fire applied.
Justice Noonan reviewed Irish and English authorities on liability for escaping fires. He concluded that Irish common law recognised strict liability, subject to statutory modification, and that the 1943 Act removed liability only for fires occurring accidentally. A fire caused through negligence by someone other than a stranger, he held, could not be treated as accidental. The contractor’s independent status did not change that rule.
The judge rejected the argument that holding the Andreuccettis liable would necessarily be unjust. He said the law had consistently placed the loss on the occupier of the property from which the fire escaped, and that the Oireachtas had limited rather than abolished that rule in 1943. He also cited the occupier’s control over the selection of a contractor and the work allowed on the property.
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed against all defendants and ordered judgment accordingly. The judgment does not state the amount of damages or set out a separate quantified award.