This is the position that Mr Harooni recently found himself in, after his business was destroyed by fire (Farzad Harooni v Rustins Ltd).
Mr Harooni had a warehouse in a large industrial block of warehouses. Mr Harooni’s next door neighbour (Rustins) stored paint and other flammable material in its warehouse. One night a fire began that spread throughout the complex, destroying various warehouses, including Mr Harooni’s warehouse. Unfortunately Mr Harooni did not have valid insurance in place. He sued Rustins, the owner of the paint warehouse.
In order to succeed Mr Harooni had to prove that the fire spread from Rustins’ warehouse (which housed the paint) to Mr Harooni’s warehouse. A mere possibility that the fire spread in this manner was insufficient (even if it was the most likely possibility out of several other possible causes). It had to be the probable cause of the fire. Mr Harooni also had to prove that, absent the fire in the paint warehouse, his warehouse would not have been destroyed.
At trial, Mr Harooni’s case did not rest on the allegation that Rustins was negligent in the way that it stored its paint or ran its business. In fact, the court held that Rustins was not negligent, even though it did not have a fire alarm. This was because the court found that the primary purpose of a fire alarm in a work place is to seek to protect people and not adjoining property.
Rylands v Fletcher: non-natural use
Primarily, Mr Harooni sought to rely on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which is a strict liability offence. As such, the claimant does not have to prove any fault on the part of the alleged wrongdoer. Instead the claimant has to prove that the defendant brought something on to his land which represented a “non-natural use” of the land, and which escaped and caused damage as a natural consequence of its escape.
In today’s modern industrial society, the court takes a restrictive view as to what amounts to a “non-natural use”. It must consist of bringing something on to the land for a special, extraordinary and unusual use and that brings with it increased dangers to others. It cannot amount to an ordinary use of the land or a use for the “general benefit of the community”.
Whether the use is “non-natural” must be considered by contemporary standards. Storing some paint or petrol on one’s land does not necessarily amount to extraordinary or unusual use. However, storing large quantities of flammable or explosive material can be. If there are statutory regulations governing the storage of what may generally be considered to be a dangerous thing, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher may not apply.
Fire is dangerous
The court recognised that fire is plainly dangerous. So, if the escape of fire from Rustins’ land to Mr Harooni’s land was the foreseeable result of the storage of a dangerous thing likely to catch fire (in this case flammable paint) and that would amount to a non-natural use by Rustins, it would normally be liable to Mr Harooni for the consequences (including any damage caused).
However, the court held that if Rustins was not responsible for the fire because, for example, it started on someone else’s land and merely passed through or over it’s land (albeit burning some flammable material on its way), Rustins was not liable.
Unfortunately Mr Harooni was unable to prove that the fire spread from Rustin’s warehouse to his own. He failed to discharge the required burden of proof. Further, he was not able to prove that his warehouse would not have burned down in any event. The court found that the fire would have spread to Mr Harooni’s warehouse, absent Rustins and its flammable paint.
Sympathy but no judgment
While the court had every sympathy for Mr Harooni and his family, the court’s sympathy did not allow it to grant judgment in their favour. The court did, however, recognise that its sympathy would not provide the Haroonis with any consolation whatsoever. So, while the court found it “difficult to feel anything other than sympathy” for the Haroonis, that was all that it was able to offer them.
If only Mr Harooni had valid insurance in place, how things may have turned out differently for him.
