Couple responsible for damage to neighbour’s roof - court

A Dublin couple whose home caught fire after a contractor hired by them carried out works on their roof are responsible for damage caused to their neighbour's property, the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said it seemed to him it came down to which of the two innocent parties involved, the couple or their neighbour William Feeney, must bear the loss.

William Feeney of Farmhill Road, Goatstown, Dublin, brought an action after his house was damaged by a fire in the house next door owned by Alberto and Jenny Andreucetti.

Shortly after an independent contractor, Michael Reilly, trading as Elm Construction, carried out works on the Andreucetti's roof in January 2012, a fire broke out which spread to Mr Feeney's home.

The High Court last December found that the fire, which caused substantial damage to both properties, had been caused by the negligence of Mr Reilly.

Mr Feeney sued both of his neighbours and the contractor over some €94,000 damage to his property.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Noonan said it was clear, given the High Court’s decision last December, that Mr Feeney must succeed against the contractor Michael Reilly.

The Andreucettis had argued, in the normal way, they would have no liability for the negligence of the independent contractor.

While it may be the law in England that an occupier is liable for an escape of fire caused by the negligence of an independent contractor, the High Court here was not bound to take the same view.

Mr Feeney, represented by John McDonagh SC and Gerry Ryan BL, argued the Andreucettis are liable for the fire damage his home sustained as it was not caused by an accident but rather by negligence.

They could not avail of Section 1 of the Accidental Fires Act 1943 which says there is no liability for the accidental escape of fire, it was contended.

The Andreucettis argued it would be unjust to impose liability on an innocent party and contrary to public policy and also said the court was being asked to determine an issue not previously arisen for consideration before the Irish Courts.

Mr Justice Noonan said he did not accept the imposition of liability on the Andreucettis necessarily worked as an injustice.

Mr Feeney could surely complain of the same injustice if the Andreucettis were found not to be liable, he said.

In the final analysis, it came down to which of the two innocent parties affected must bear the loss. The Courts in England and Ireland have consistently taken the view it should be the occupier of the property from which the fire escapes who must bear the loss.

It may well be “the genesis of the policy behind this rule” has been “lost in the mists of time”. This rule had not been abolished by the Oireachtas in the 1943 Act but had been limited by its exclusion to fires starting accidentially and no more.

The judge ruled a fire occurring through negligence on the part of anyone save a stranger could not be said to be accidental. The fact the negligence in question was that of an independent contractor was not germane, the judge said.