Ramblers way Ltd v Mr Middleton Garden Shop Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hedigan
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 473
• Docket Number: [No. 5619P/2009]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 November 2012

Ramblers Way Ltd v Mr Middleton Garden Shop Ltd T/a Mr Middleton

BETWEEN

RAMBLERS WAY LIMITED

PLAINTIFF

AND

MR. MIDDLETON GARDEN SHOP LIMITED TRADING AS MR. MIDDLETON

DEFENDANT

[2012] IEHC 473

[No. 5619P/2009]

THE HIGH COURT

TORT LAW

Negligence

Damages - Fire caused by heater - Damage caused to adjacent premises by fire - Claim fire accidental - Whether fire accidental - Accidental Fires Act 1943 (No 8), s 1 - Damages awarded (2009/5619P - Hedigan J - 14/11/2012) [2012] IEHC 473

Ramblers Way Ltd v Mr Middleton Garden Shop Ltd

Facts: The plaintiff's premises adjoined the defendant's premises in Dublin. In February 2004 a fire broke out at the defendant's premises which caused smoke and water damage to the plaintiff's premises. Damages had been agreed, but liability was disputed. The plaintiff alleged the defendant had been negligent, and could not benefit from the protection of s 1 of the Accidental Fires Act 1943.

Held by Hedigan J, that the likely cause of the fire was a heater that the plaintiff alleged had been left on over a number of days. The defendant claimed the heater had been turned off, but considering the instruction manual for the heater, the Court considered the warnings therein had been ignored by the defendant. As such, the fire could not be said to have been accidental, and the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the sum of damages already agreed.

Mr. Justice Hedigan

1 The plaintiff claims damages against the defendant for negligence, etc. as a result of a fire that occurred on the defendant's premises at 58, Mary Street in the City of Dublin at or about the 29^th February 2004 around 11.00pm. As a result of this fire the plaintiff's adjoining premises at 57, Mary Street, suffered damage from smoke and water.

2 Damages are agreed at a figure of €185,000.

3 is the plaintiff's claim that the defendant was negligent in a wide range of matters and thus is not entitled to the protection of the Accidental Fires Act1943, Section 1 because the fire did not accidentally occur. The negligence alleged may be summarized as follow;

4 (a) leaving the heater switched on in his office over two days,

(b) placing the heating in the vicinity of flammable materials,

5 (c) failing to unplug the heater.

6 4. Garret Quearney a director of the defendant in his evidence stated that on the 28^th February, 2004, he and his assistant closed their premises at No. 58 at or about 5.30pm. He states that as he closed the grill over the door of the shop, he remembered that he had forgotten to turn off the convector heater in the small office or kitchen at the rear of the premises. His long time assistant, Vera McKenna, confirmed this account. He returned through the premises and turned off the heater by switching the rocker switch to zero and turning the thermostat to zero as well. This, he said, was his usual way. He is emphatic that he turned the heater off that night. He admits he did not unplug the heater. He does unplug its successor since...