Legal help needed please!

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

Ryland doesn't require negligence. You still haven't commented on whether or why it would or wouldn't apply.

Edited by janesmith1950 on Friday 21st February 09:10

I may have missed something but because of Gore - Ryland probably won't apply as the fire not the rubbish spread.

However ignis suus strict liability has only been reversed by statute or caselaw for fires that started accidentally not "Deliberately kindled" so it may well still be good law for bonfires that get out of control.
Jerrett v Walker as recently as 2013 didn't take the opportunity to reverse it - It instead gave some protection, when the original deliberately set fire (Which was in an indoor fireplace) itself doesn't spread but, unforeseen sparks, did causing a second "Accidental" fire, this doesn't read to me as the same as the OP's case.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 23 February 12:35

[V8RX7]

Mildredthedog said:

they don’t have any money so it won’t be much.

I’m seeing a solicitor next Tuesday to see how I move forward on this.

After reading the first line, the second seems pointless.

[Sheepshanks]

V8RX7 said:

Mildredthedog said:

they don’t have any money so it won’t be much.

I’m seeing a solicitor next Tuesday to see how I move forward on this.

After reading the first line, the second seems pointless.

The neighbour has insurance so if he is found to be liable then his insurance should cover him - someone already mentioned it, liability to third parties.

[anonymous-user]

Graveworm said:

I may have missed something but because of Gore - Ryland probably won't apply as the fire not the rubbish spread.

However ignis suus strict liability has only been reversed by statute or caselaw for fires that started accidentally not "Deliberately kindled" so it may well still be good law for bonfires that get out of control.
Jerrett v Walker as recently as 2013 didn't take the opportunity to reverse it - It instead gave some protection, when the original deliberately set fire (Which was in an indoor fireplace) itself doesn't spread but, unforeseen sparks, did causing a second "Accidental" fire, this doesn't read to me as the same as the OP's case.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 23 February 12:35

In Gore my understanding is it turned on the fact that the fire was itself accidental (therefore ingnis suus defeated by the defence under the Act) and the thing that made it spread it was the tyres, and the storage of tyres was not an non-natural use of the land. The question ultimately was, were tyres and their storage the dangerous non-natural thing?

This case is about setting fire to items deliberately, i.e. the occupier of the land next door to the OP brought both the items to burn and the fire onto his land. In my mind, could be wrong, the question would be, was the burning of those particular items bringing a hazardous, non-natural thing on the land, and if it spread to adjoining land, was damage to it foreseeable?

If neighbour was burning garden waste, I imaging that's normal use of the land and Ryland cannot apply, whereas if it was a skip fill of fridges and other items you'd not normally consider burning in a domestic garden for fear of it being overly combustible, I can see how it might apply.

Being a deliberate fire, in any case, what would stop ignis suus from applying here?

[Graveworm]

janesmith1950 said:

Being a deliberate fire, in any case, what would stop ignis suus from applying here?

I don't know of anything.

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

Putting aside this proving negligence business I'm looking at it as simply as this:

If I were to crash into my neighbours car whilst parking he can quite rightly claim off my car insurance for the damage done.

So if he then lights a bonfire that wrecks my garden why can't I claim off his house insurance for the damage done?

Surely if you took him to court to claim for compensation over it would the magistrate/judge not just a exercise a degree of reasonableness to establish liability???

[bad company]

nikaiyo2 said:

I have been there, with someone starting a fire inside a garage in a block.

The advice I was given, by our insurers and qualified legal advice was attempting to sue for this was pointless. Unless there was a pattern of behavior it was not worth the cost.

The standard of proof required for negligence to succeed is very high.

The advice to download a template and issue a claim is great. Worth noting that the insurer of the other party will provide them with legal assistance, so the OP will be litigant in person against an insurance companies QC who deals with this day in day out.

If the insurance company really does defend a claim on behalf of their client they’ll be liable for huge legal costs. In theory they may be able to recover them from the op if they win but in all probability they’ll prefer to settle.

[Durzel]

janesmith1950 said:

If neighbour was burning garden waste, I imaging that's normal use of the land and Ryland cannot apply, whereas if it was a skip fill of fridges and other items you'd not normally consider burning in a domestic garden for fear of it being overly combustible, I can see how it might apply.

Could you prove the latter though when all that's left is a pile of ashes (if that) and the neighbour would surely not self-incriminate?

I would presume situating the fire so close to the OP's property, which itself was encircled by fencing that would obviously be flammable, would be at the heart of this. OP's neighbour didn't have to burn the rubbish and certainly did not have to situate the fire in such close proximity to the OP's property.

I also don't believe the "rogue spark" aspect either, nor think it's particularly relevant when the heat of the fire and proximity to OP's property would tend to cause spontaneous ignition anyway, if it was as close as described.

I think it's worth a run through the small claims track. It sounds like OP isn't going to get anywhere without going legal, unless he is prepared to write it off.

[Red Devil]

Durzel said:

janesmith1950 said:

If neighbour was burning garden waste, I imaging that's normal use of the land and Ryland cannot apply, whereas if it was a skip fill of fridges and other items you'd not normally consider burning in a domestic garden for fear of it being overly combustible, I can see how it might apply.

Could you prove the latter though when all that's left is a pile of ashes (if that) and the neighbour would surely not self-incriminate?

It wasn't garden waste. See below.

Mildredthedog said:

Thanks for that everyone.
The reason for the fire was to clear up a lot of household waste (as ordered from the council) and instead of getting a skip they decided to burn it.

If the local authority was involved there might be a record of what is was that needed to be disposed of.

[BertBert]

You've not quite got the logic right there...

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

Putting aside this proving negligence business I'm looking at it as simply as this:

If I were to crash into my neighbours car whilst parking he can quite rightly claim off my car insurance for the damage done.

So if he then lights a bonfire that wrecks my garden why can't I claim off his house insurance for the damage done?

Surely if you took him to court to claim for compensation over it would the magistrate/judge not just a exercise a degree of reasonableness to establish liability???

We've already debated how hard it is to prove negligence in the case of fire - there seems to be quite a debate about whether the fire dude would be negligent or not.
Bert

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

Either which way if his bonfire had ultimately caused £8000 worth of damage to my garden I wouldn't just write it off, I'd take a punt at suing him for the cost whether or not his insurance would back him.

[Graveworm]

CYMR0 said:

If you win, the insurance has no choice but to back him.

At the moment, they're taking the view that fires are reasonable: therefore there is no negligence, and thus no liability. If the court agrees, then neither the neighbour nor the insurer will pay a penny.

If, on the other hand, they are wrong and the court agrees with you, they'll pay out. The flipside is that the insurance can deal with this by paying recent law grads £10 an hour and a junior barrister £200 to show up on the day, if it ever gets beyond a nuisance offer. Meanwhile the claimant either has to argue the law of negligence (or nuisance) very precisely, or pay a solicitor £200 per hour to do so on his behalf.

There is very little law per se - you'd have to demonstrate a specific liability on the known facts, which may be hard to establish, and get the legal argument and procedure exactly right. As such, it's a straightforward financial calculation for the insurer to say that they're denying liability and shifting the onus to the claimant to take it up a gear. In the absence of insurance - and it's worth checking if there is legal expenses insurance rather than insurance that covers the loss directly - that would be difficult to do.

ignis suus still appears to be good law for a non accidental fire that spreads beyond the occupiers property. If that can be proved to be the case, then there is no no need to prove negligence and strict liability applies.