Ribee v Norrie

An occupier’s responsibility for the escape of negligently caused fire extends to fire caused by a tenant, licensee or guest whose presence and ordinary conduct were reasonably foreseeable. For this purpose, occupation depends on the power to control the relevant premises, not the control actually exercised. A landlord retaining control of communal areas may therefore be liable where he could regulate smoking or other fire risks. A person is a stranger only where the conduct causing the fire is so alien to the permission given that it could not reasonably have been anticipated. Causation cannot be established by speculation that a required fire-warning system would probably have reduced the damage.

Margaret Ribee claimed damages for personal injury and smoke damage after a fire began in the communal parts of adjoining premises owned and operated by Michael Norrie as a boarding house. The fire was assumed to have been caused negligently by a tenant, licensee or visitor who discarded a smouldering cigarette. The County Court dismissed the claim, holding that the person responsible was a stranger for the purposes of liability for escaped fire. It also rejected the alternative claim based on failure to install an automatic fire-detection system, because causation was speculative. The appeal concerned whether Norrie was an occupier of the communal parts, whether the person who caused the fire was a stranger, and whether the fire-warning breach was causative.

1. Appeal allowed. The defendant was liable for the fire and the smoke damage because the fire was negligently caused by someone using the communal premises with his permission. Judgment was entered by consent for £5,063.02 with interest.
2. For liability relating to escaped fire, a person is an occupier where he has sufficient authority over the relevant premises to direct persons there whether to light a fire or extinguish it. The question is the power of control available to him, not the extent of control actually exercised. Norrie retained exclusive possession and control of the communal areas and could regulate their use by rules, notices or other measures.
3. A tenant, licensee or guest is not a stranger where the occupier could reasonably anticipate the relevant conduct. Smoking in communal accommodation, an inadequately extinguished cigarette, and a cigarette dropped through tiredness, drink, drugs or inadvertence were foreseeable risks. The occupier could not avoid responsibility merely because he did not exercise continuous physical supervision.
4. The reasoning was consistent with H & N Emanuel Ltd v G.L.C., and with the distinction between foreseeable conduct by a licensee and an unauthorised act wholly outside the invitation illustrated by Erikson v Clifton. The circumstances were materially closer to Boulcott Golf Club, Incorporated v Engelbrecht.
5. The alternative allegation concerning the automatic fire-detection system failed. There was no evidence that installation would have brought the fire under control earlier or prevented the claimant’s loss; that conclusion would have rested on speculation. The court did not decide wider questions concerning the precise juridical basis of fire liability, nuisance or Rylands v Fletcher.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2000] EWCA Civ 275: appeal allowed; the County Court decision was reversed and damages were entered by consent.
• Kingston-upon-Hull County Court — Judge Cracknell: claim dismissed. The occupier-liability issue was decided on the basis that the tenant or other lawful occupant who caused the fire was a stranger.