Discontinued Claim for Fire Damage – Failure to Establish Negligence
Kerry Foster
In a recent interesting case, concerning a claim for damages arising from a fire incident involving two vehicles, the importance of being able to establish negligence was highlighted.
The Claimant alleged that their vehicle was damaged after a fire originating in the Defendant’s vehicle spread to theirs, whilst both vehicles were parked next to each other.
The Claimant sought to recovery close to £20,000 in respect of the damage to their vehicle and associated losses. Whilst the allegations of negligence were not well pleaded in the Claimant’s statement of case (these being pleaded as if the two vehicles had collided), in short, their case was that the Defendant must have been negligent for the fire to have incurred.
The Defendant’s case was that his vehicle, a VW Campervan, was well-maintained and had a valid MOT. However, the vehicle had broken down and had had to be recovered. When the Defendant then later tried to start the van, fuel in the fuel tank ignited, causing burns to the Defendant’s legs and completely destroying the vehicle.
Whilst the Defendant accepted that he owned a duty of care to the owners of the vehicles parked next to him, he denied that there had been any breach of that duty. He could not have reasonably foreseen that by turning the ignition on the van that a fire could have been caused and there was little he could have done to have extinguished the fire once it took hold.
The case was defended on the basis that the Claimant could not show that the Defendant had been negligent and had breached that duty of case. To make out their claim, the Claimant had to establish more than mere possession and had to show that the Defendant’s actions were unreasonable and amounted to negligence.
Shortly after the Defence was filed, the Claimant discontinued their claim in full. The inability to establish negligence meant the Claimant could not satisfy the legal requirements to succeed on liability. This case, although different from the majority of RTA cases, reinforces the principle that liability for accidental damage requires clear evidence of fault, and not merely the occurrence of harm.
