Nugent v Fogarty

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings concern liability for a fire that occurred on or about 27th July 2010 at the Defendant’s dwelling house premises. The Plaintiff’s claim is for damages arising from loss and damage to his adjoining dwelling house caused by the Defendant’s negligence. The Plaintiff owns the property at 125 Coolevin, Ballybrack, while the Defendant owns and occupies the adjoining property at 126 Coolevin, Ballybrack.

The fire originated in the attic of the Defendant’s property and spread to the Plaintiff’s property, causing significant damage. The parties agreed on damages amounting to €96,748.43. Expert evidence established that the fire started adjacent to downlighter fittings in the attic, caused by plastic bags containing clothing placed close to the fittings. The heat from the downlighters ignited one of the bags.

Following the fire, the Defendant’s insurer declined to pursue the manufacturer of the appliance, citing the Accidental Fires Act 1943 and the accidental nature of the damage without negligence on the part of the Defendant or her family.

At the hearing on 23rd June 2015, evidence was presented from the Defendant, her daughter, and experts. The Court found that the fire was caused by the negligence of the Defendant or her daughter, who had placed the flammable bags in the attic despite warnings from the deceased husband about the dangers of leaving flammable items near the downlighter fittings.

Having established negligence, the Court adjourned the matter for submissions on the interpretation and application of the Accidental Fires Act 1943, the issue addressed in this judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a fire caused by the negligence of the owner or occupier of premises can be considered a “fire accidentally occurring” within the meaning of section 1 of the Accidental Fires Act 1943.
2. Whether the immunity from legal proceedings under the 1943 Act applies to fires caused by negligence, or only to fires caused without negligence.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The phrase “fire accidentally occurring” in section 1 of the 1943 Act means a fire occurring without negligence.
• Reliance on McMahon & Binchy’s Law of Torts and the recent High Court decision in Feeney v Andreucetti [2015] IEHC 63, which held that a fire caused by negligence is not accidental.
• The Defendant and her family knew of the danger posed by the downlighters but still placed flammable bags near them, constituting negligence.
• The manner in which the bags came to be near the downlighters is immaterial once negligence is established.
• Analogous to Ramblers Way v Mr. Middleton Garden Shop [2012] IEHC 473, where leaving an electric heater on near flammable materials was negligent and excluded the fire from being accidental.
• Allowing negligence to fall within “fire accidentally occurring” would undermine the duty of care owed by occupiers to their neighbours.

Defendant's Arguments

• The 1943 Act precludes proceedings where fire damage results from “fire accidentally occurring,” which should be interpreted as an unintended or unexpected event, regardless of negligence.
• Definitions of “accident” emphasize lack of intention, not absence of negligence; thus, a negligent act may still result in an accidental fire.
• The fire was not a direct or necessary consequence of any intentional act by the Defendant; the bags were placed weeks earlier and may have moved due to plastic “creep.”
• Intervening events—the movement of the bags and the switching on of the light—were necessary for the fire to start, making it a chance event.
• The 1943 Act should protect fires caused by negligence if there are intervening acts, otherwise its purpose is frustrated.
• Reliance on authorities such as Johnson v BJW Property Developments Limited (2001) and Stannard v Gore [2012] EWCA Civ 1248 to argue that immunity under the Act may still apply even where negligence is found, depending on the circumstances.
• Criticism of the plaintiff’s reliance on Feeney v Andreucetti, which concerned third-party contractor liability, not occupier negligence directly.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by reaffirming its earlier finding that the fire was caused by the negligence of the Defendant or her family. The central legal question was whether a fire caused by negligence falls within the meaning of “fire accidentally occurring” under section 1 of the Accidental Fires Act 1943, which would bar the Plaintiff’s claim.

The Court reviewed the statutory language, relevant case law, and authoritative legal commentary. It rejected the Defendant’s broader interpretation of “accident” as encompassing negligent acts, emphasizing that the term “accidentally” in the Act cannot logically include fires caused by negligence. The Court relied heavily on the recent High Court decision in Feeney v Andreucetti, which held that a fire caused by negligence is not accidental for the purposes of the Act.

The Court also found the facts of the present case closely analogous to Ramblers Way Ltd v Mr Middleton Garden Shop Ltd, where negligent conduct excluded the fire from the Act’s protection. The Court noted that including negligent conduct within the Act’s definition of accidental fire would undermine the duty of care owed by occupiers to their neighbours and dilute the purpose of the legislation.

Furthermore, the Court considered and dismissed the Defendant’s arguments that intervening acts or the absence of intention could render the fire accidental despite negligence. It emphasized that the Defendant had knowledge of the risk posed by the downlighters and failed to take appropriate precautions, making the fire a non-accidental event.

Finally, the Court acknowledged that the 1943 Act’s immunity remains applicable in cases where fires occur without negligence, such as those caused by unforeseen events like weather or spontaneous combustion, but not in cases involving negligent conduct.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the fire in question was not a “fire accidentally occurring” within the meaning of section 1 of the Accidental Fires Act 1943 because it was caused by the negligence of the Defendant or her family.

The Plaintiff’s claim for damages is therefore not barred by the 1943 Act and is entitled to succeed.

The decision confirms that the statutory immunity from suit under the Act does not extend to fires caused by negligence, thereby preserving the common law duty of care owed by occupiers to their neighbours. No new precedent was set beyond affirming the existing interpretation of the Act as recently applied in Feeney v Andreucetti and Ramblers Way Ltd.