Notwithstanding a clause in the contract that no rubbish was to be burnt on the site, it was known to the Council that the contractor it had engaged to demolish and remove prefabricated bungalows made a practice of burning off small pieces of wood on the sites where he was engaged to demolish such buildings. The fire escaped damaged the neighbour’s property.
Held: The Greater London Council as successor of the London County Council was liable, as occupier, for the escape of fire negligently so caused.
Lord Denning MR considered the scope of liability at common law. He said: ‘After considering the cases, it is my opinion that 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 the occupier is not liable for the negligence is when it is the negligence of a stranger. It was so held in a case in the Year Books 570 years ago, Beaulieu v Finglam, which is well translated by Mr Fifoot in his book on the History and Sources of the Common Law. The occupier is, therefore, liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, such as the man who comes in to repair the pipes and uses a blowlamp: see Balfour v Barty-King; and of a guest who negligently drops a lighted match: see Boulcott Golf Club Inc v Engelbrecht. The occupier is liable because he is the occupier and responsible in that capacity for those who come by his leave and licence: see Sturges v Hackett. But the occupier is not liable for the escape of fire which is not due to the negligence of anyone. Sir John Holt himself said in Tuberville v Stampe that if a man is properly burning up weeds or stubble and, owing to an unforeseen wind-storm, without negligence, the fire is carried into his neighbour’s ground, he is not liable. Again, if a haystack is properly built at a safe distance, and yet bursts into flames by spontaneous combustion, without negligence, the occupier is not liable. That is to be inferred from Vaughan v Menlove. So also if a fire starts without negligence owing to an unknown defect in the electric wiring: Collingwood v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd; or a spark leaps out of the fireplace without negligence: Sochacki v Sas.’ and
‘There has been much discussion about the exact legal basis of liability for fire. The liability of the occupier can be said to be a strict liability in this sense that he is liable for the negligence not only of his servants but also of independent contractors and, indeed, of anyone except a ‘stranger’. By the same token it can be said to be a ‘vicarious liability’, because he is liable for the defaults of others as well as his own. It can also be said to be a liability under the principle of Rylands v Fletcher because fire is undoubtedly a dangerous thing which is likely to do damage if it escapes. But I do not think it necessary to put it into any one of these three categories. It goes back to the time when no such categories were thought of. Suffice it to say that the extent of the liability is now well defined as I have stated it. The occupier is liable for the escape of fire which is due to the negligence of anyone other than a stranger.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1971] 2 All ER 835
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.512158
