In a recent decision the Court of Appeal has been asked to consider the extent to which an occupier of land can be liable to his neighbour for damage cause to his neighbour’s property as a result of the escape of fire from his land. The conclusions reached may be somewhat surprising.
Background and context
A property owner who finds that his property has been damaged as a result of fire which has escaped from a neighbour’s property will, understandably, be aggrieved and will want pursue a claim for compensation. Claims of this sort are usually pursued on two grounds:
- Alleging that the escape of the fire was caused by the negligence of the occupier of the land.
- Alleging that the occupier has breached a duty not to cause damage to his neighbours as a result of the keeping of dangerous substances on the land in question.
In the leading case of Rylands –v- Fletcher, the House of Lords laid down that in order that liability may be established in such cases the claimant needs to prove the following:
- The occupier has brought on to his land something that is dangerous.
- The danger must escape from the occupier’s land to the claimant’s land.
- The use to which the occupier had put his land must be ‘non-natural’.
The case of Rylands –v- Fletcher itself involved the escape of water and, in that case, the defendant was found liable to the claimant for the damage that was caused as a result of the fact that the water had escaped on to the Claimant’s land.
Recent developments
The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Stannard (trading as Wyvern Tyres) –v- Gore [2012] EWCA CIV 1248 involved the escape of fire from premises owned and occupied by Mr Stannard. As his trading name suggests, he supplied and fitted car and van tyres. As part of that business, he stored tyres on his premises. A fire broke out and Mr Gore’s property was completely destroyed.
However, the neighbour recovered no compensation from him. Firstly, it was established that the fire had been caused by faulty wiring. The Court held that Mr Stannard was not to blame for this. Therefore, liability depended upon whether it was possible to show that the escape of the fire fell within the principles established by the case of Rylands –v- Fletcher.
The case against Mr Stannard was based on the argument that the storage of tyres was not a natural usage of the land and the fact that once tyres have been set alight, the flames are very difficult to extinguish. The Court rejected this claim on the basis that the tyres themselves were not inherently dangerous; it was not the tyres themselves that had escaped and caused damage but the fire. Since it was the fire that had escaped, the issue was whether it could reasonably be argued that it was the fire that was being stored on the land. The court decided that this was not the case, and this aspect of the claim also failed.
Summary and conclusions
What are the consequences of this decision? For many owners of land, the decision will not have major implications, because they will be able to recover their losses under a suitably worded insurance policy. Obviously, it may have implications for the insurers themselves because the decision will severely curtail their ability to recover from the neighbour the compensation they will be asked to pay under the policy.
For those who find themselves without property insurance, the case may come as a bit of a shock. A dispassionate observer looking at that situation might well feel that the innocent land owner ought to be able to recover his losses from the neighbour. It is now clear that such a claim will be fraught with difficulty.
However, there may be circumstances in which other claims might be available. For example, if the property from which the fire has escaped is part of a terrace of properties, or one of several flats in a large building, and has been substantially destroyed, then it may still be possible for the owners of the neighbouring properties to pursue a claim on the basis that the support provided by the property where the fire started has been removed and the neighbours may be entitled to pursue a claim for the cost of reinstating this.