A fire had started in Hobbs’ barn when a spark from a grinding machine fell onto combustible material/debris below the machine. The fire spread into and destroyed Gerber’s adjacent hanger. Hobbs alleged that the fire spread was due to the action of the foam insulation in the barn (called Isofoam) and issued separate proceedings against … Continue reading E Hobbs (Farms) Limited v The Baxenden Chemical Co Limited: 1992
The Act gave a defence to liability for a fire which started accidentally, this did not cover a fire which started by negligence. Judges: Parker LJ Citations: [1956] 1 WLR 85, [1956] 1 ALL ER 154, [1955] EWCA Civ 5 Links: Bailii Statutes: Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – … Continue reading Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd: CA 1956
Land next to the canal was used for the deposit of refuse by trespassers. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. It caught fire, and the fire spread toward the canal. By agreement the parties got together to put out the fire, and now sought to allocate the … Continue reading Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors: CA 1924
A fire resulting from a non-natural user of land (i.e. a fire to which the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies) was outside the protection of the Act, because, in such circumstances, the relevant fire was not regarded as having been started accidentally. Atkinson J: ‘A private nuisance arises out of a state of things … Continue reading Spicer v Smee: 1946
Rubbish was tipped on land belonging to a canal company and on adjoining land belonging to mine owners. The rubbish on the mine owners’ land was found to be on fire, and the canal company feared that the fire might spread to their own land. Having called on the mine owners to extinguish the fire, … Continue reading Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors: 1923
The defendant railway company ran steam locomotives on its railway. Although it had taken all reasonable precautions against the emission of sparks from the engine, nevertheless sparks from the engine set the plaintiff’s haystack alight and burned down his barn. Held: The claim succeeded. The thing of the dangerous nature that the railway company had … Continue reading Jones v Festiniog Railway: CEC 1867
The defendant drove a steam powered traction engine on the highway. Sparks from the engine set fire to the plaintiff’s haystack. The court was asked: ‘whether the owner of a locomotive engine propelled by steam along a public highway using a fire for the purpose of generating the steam required to propel such engine . … Continue reading Powell v Fall: 1879
The defendant had caused a fire when sparks flew from his steam traction engine as he drove along the highway. He now appealed against a judgemnt that he was liable. He conceded that an action lay at common law. Held: The decision was upheld. There was no statutory exemption. Judges: Bramwell LJ Citations: (1880) 5 … Continue reading Powell v Fall: CA 1880
A fire which started with an electrical short circuit, went on to set fire to some wood and in due course to a stack of paper. Held: Section 86 of the 1774 Act applied to excuse the defendant. Lord Goddard said: ‘In my opinion it was a short circuit that set fire to the wood … Continue reading Solomons v R Gertzenstein Ltd: QBD 1954
Mr Musgrove rented rooms above a domestic garage, in which Mr Pandelis kept a car. Mr Pandelis sent his chauffeur, Mr Coumis, to clean the car. Mr Coumis had to move the car within the garage. For that purpose he went to the bonnet and turned on the petrol tap to allow the flow of … Continue reading Musgrove v Pandelis: 1919
The defendants had a store of machinery in inflammable packings, together with a quantity of petroleum, acetylene and paints. A neighbour claimed from fire damage. Held: They were liable for the damage when fire broke out and escaped to the neighbouring property. He found that the circumstances of the storage amounted to a non-natural user … Continue reading Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England: 1967
A fire started as the result of the negligent use of a blow torch by an independent contractor, damaging the plaintiff’s property. The use of fire had, therefore, been deliberate. The plaintiff argued that ‘If negligence be shown, it matters not against whom, the fire is not accidental.’ Held: The claim succeeded. The existence of … Continue reading Balfour v Barty-King: 1957
Mr Williams left his car overnight in the hotel garage. A fire broke out and destroyed his car. Held: The strict liability of an innkeeper was limited to loss of his guest’s goods rather than to their destruction. As to section 86 of the 1774 Act, he said: ‘I think that this liability of the … Continue reading Williams v Owen: QBD 1955
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability under the rule in Rylands, concluding that the appellant had collected the tyres on … Continue reading Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore: CA 4 Oct 2012
The plaintiff ((M) rented first floor rooms above the defendant’s garage. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms.
Held: The Act did not provide a . .