Defendant’s tenants starting fire at property – Fire causing damage to neighbouring property – Judge dismissing neighbour’s claim – Claimant appealing – Whether tenant to be treated as a stranger to the defendant – Whether defendant to be held liable – Appeal allowed
The claimant and the defendant were neighbours. The defendant owned, but did not live at, his property, which he ran as a hostel with bedsit accommodation. A fire broke out at the defendant’s property, causing extensive damage to that property and generating smoke that penetrated to the claimant’s property, where she was asleep. The fire brigade supposed that a cigarette or a disgarded cigarette had been the cause of the fire.
The claimant sued the defendant in respect of the damage and personal injury she suffered as a result of the fire. The judge found, inter alia, that it was not known how the fire started, but that it “may have started in a ground floor living or sitting room”, and that it was, on the balance of probabilities, caused by a tenant. However, the judge went on to find that the defendant could not be held responsible for the actions of his licensees, as whichever of them caused the fire was to be treated as a “stranger”. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.
The claimant appealed. Both parties relied upon H&N Emanuel Ltd v Greater London Council [1971] 2 All ER 835, which stated: “the occupier of a house or land is liable for the escape of fire which is due to the negligence not only of his servants, but also of his independent contractors and of his guests, and of anyone who is there with his leave or licence. The only circumstances when an occupier is not liable for the negligence is when it is the negligence of a stranger”. Having found that the defendant was the occupier, the key issue was whether the tenant or licensee who started the fire was a stranger to the defendant.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The defendant could reasonably have anticipated that his tenants or licensees or their guests would smoke in the common parts of the hostel. As landlord, he had power to exercise some control over their use of the common parts. By the terms of the licence or by prominent notices, he could have regulated the smoking as he thought fit to ensure that the premises were safely used. Those who started the fire were not strangers. The defendant was responsible for the fire and the damage that the smoke from it caused to the claimant and her property.
John Collins (instructed by Graham & Rosen, of Hull) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Hartley (instructed by Frank Allen Pennington) appeared for the defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
