PT Civil Engineering v Davies

In a negligence claim involving an unexplained fire in a vehicle, the fact of the accident does not by itself establish liability. The res ipsa loquitur inference requires an unexplained occurrence which ordinarily would not happen without negligence, together with circumstances pointing to negligence by the defendant. Poor maintenance and a history of defects are insufficient where the evidence does not link those matters to the fire. The claimant retains the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, both breach of duty and causation.

The claimant was injured after a fire erupted in a van owned by the defendant while he was travelling as a passenger. The trial judge found that the van was poorly maintained, rejected the claimant's positive theory of causation, and nevertheless inferred negligence from the unexplained fire, the vehicle's condition and its history of faults. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the Mold County Court.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence did not connect the poor maintenance or any vehicle defect with the fire. The central issue was whether the circumstances justified an inference that the defendant's negligence caused the fire and the resulting injuries.

1. Appeal allowed. The order giving judgment for the claimant, awarding costs and providing for payment on account was set aside. The claim was dismissed.
2. The claimant bore the burden of proving that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the injuries. An unexplained occurrence may justify an inference of negligence where it would not ordinarily happen without negligence and the circumstances point to negligence by the defendant, commonly because the defendant controlled the thing causing the accident. This is the principle described as res ipsa loquitur, reflected in (1865) 3 H & C 596 and 1954] Q.B. 66.
3. The trial judge had accepted that the precise cause of the fire was unknown and had rejected the only positive theory of causation. The experts agreed that the previous defects could not be linked to the fire, and the physical evidence placed the seat of the fire in or around the driver's seat, not beneath the dashboard.
4. The evidence showed that poor maintenance could give rise to a fire but that the relevant fault should be detectable. It did not establish any defect capable of causing this fire. The history of faults and repeated repairs therefore could not, without a causal link, support an inference that the defendant's failure to maintain the vehicle caused the accident.
5. Although the fire was an unexplained occurrence which would not normally arise without negligence by someone, the circumstances did not point to negligence by this defendant. The absence of proof of an alternative cause did not relieve the claimant of proving breach and causation.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): appeal from the Mold County Court, heard at the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre. The appeal was allowed and the claim was dismissed.
• Mold County Court: HHJ Seys-Llewellyn Q.C. entered judgment for the claimant and ordered the defendant to pay costs and a payment on account on 9 November 2016.