Agra Trading Ltd v Waterford County Council
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Kilkenny,McCarthy J.,McCarthy,J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1985 |
| Neutral Citation | 1983 WJSC-CC 1781 |
| Date | 01 January 1985 |
| Court | Circuit Court |
1983 WJSC-CC 1781
CIRCUIT APPEAL
SOUTH EASTERN CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF WATERFORD
and
JUDGMENT delivered at Kilkennyon the 11th day of October, 1984by McCarthy,J.
On the 18th August, 1981 a fire occurred at the premises of Q.K. Cold Stores Ltd. at Carroll's Cross, Kilmacthomas, Co. Waterford, as a result of which a large quantity of meat and sundry other items the property of the applicants was destroyed. This is an application for compensation for criminal injury to property pursuant to the Malicious Damage Code that prevailed prior to the 6th November, 1981, when the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981, came into force. The application is in form under the 1 981 Act, but no point arises in that regard. From the evidence which I have heard, certain facts clearly emerge and, indeed, ar9 not in issue:-
1. The fire occurred in what in called a box-room, at first floor level within a relatively new large structure. The only other room at the same level was an office in which the Managing Director, Mr. Browne, was working. Access to the box-room is through the office.
2. In the box-room, brought there by a forklift truck operating from the ground floor and through a door at the end opposite to the office was a large quantity of "flats" - the cardboard kit for the boxes that were to contain various, cuts of meat; a number of completed bozos, some stacked-at, a point leading from the office door towards the centre of the box-room and some, already completed with-the addition of an adhesive label, contained in chutes leading from the box-room to below. The flats were stacked some 1½ to 2 feet high in the approximate centre of the box-room, which was 25 feet by 15, the flats being some 4 feet by 2 feet, the longer side presenting towards the office door. The flats rested on a wooden pallet some 4/5 inches deep and made of a number of slats.
3. The two operators employed to work in the box store were Joseph Morrissey, then aged 15, and his brother Michael, then aged 17. Their job was to make up the boxes, stick the appropriate label on each, and, a3 required, send them down through the chutes. It may be fairly described as light, repetitive and, consequently monotonous work. They had been working there for some 3/4 months and were satisfactoryworkmen.
4. On the day before the fire there had been no requirement forboxesand the Morrisseys had worked elsewhere; on the day of the fire they were over two hours late for work but were not reprimanded or, apparently, even criticised; they passed by the Managing Director on their late arrival.
5. There was a ban on smoking while at work; they were two smoking breaks during the day, the earlier being at 11.10a.m. The enforcement of the smoking ban was casual at best.
6. The adhesive labels, in several different descriptive forms, were contained on rolls of backing paper, which rolls hung from the ceiling and it was the practice to tear off a strip from time to time, remove the labels and discard the remaining portion of backing paper, which might vary in length from about six to twelve inches. Whilst there were some containers for that purpose, apparently the litter created by the backing paper was not put into the containers but allowed to lie on the floor. The backing paper was impregnated with a paraffin-wax which made it highly flammable.
7. Other than the backing paper, there was nothing in the box-room of so flammable a nature. The flats and boxes were, of course flammable to some degree.
8. No electrical, heating or like fault was or could have been suggested as being the cause of the fire. It was caused by-backing paper becoming ignited and consequently setting fire to the flats.
The cause of the spread of fire being clear and not in issue, the real question may be summarised as follows:-
Did Joseph Morrissey deliberately or by an act of wanton recklessness ignite the backing paper so as to cause the fire? The applicants presented the case as one of deliberate act seeking to establish this byproving:-
(a) The allegedly tidy nature of the box-room before the arrival of the Morrisseys.
(b) The nature of the fire as first seen, by the Managing Director -flames, coming, as it were, from the floor and running along the short side of the flats nearest to the chutes, possibly a little around the back and reaching up above the level of the flats. Neither the boxes in the chutes or those on the floor were damaged by fire - at thatstage.
(c) Dr. Daniel McDaid, a fire expert, was present at the carrying out of certain tests at the Institute of Industrial Research andStandards in which some six metres of backing paper - about half crumpled and the other half lying on the floor was ignited alongside a number of flats lying, not on a pallet, but on a floor, and in which the flats failed to ignite. Fifty boxes were labelled that morning before the fire; this would amount to 100 labels which would together on a roll of backing paper measure some four metres; consequently, it was contended there was no possible way in which such a small amount of backing paper could be responsible for an accidental fire.
Accordingly, the applicants contended that they had excluded innocent accident and had established a criminal act.
The onus of proof in applications of this kind is the same as that required in...
To continue reading
Request your trial