Fire in Cork car park

coylemj

Does the Accidental Fires Act 1943 apply in the case of the fire in a shopping centre car park in Cork?

If it does, it means that anyone who lost their car and had third party cover only is screwed.

While the original intent may have been to apply only to buildings or (perhaps) horses in a stable and/or a car parked in your own garage, it appears that it simply covers 'damage' so would appear to apply in the case of a car parked in a multistorey car park....

1.—(1) Where any person (in this section referred to as the injured person) has suffered damage by reason of fire accidentally occurring (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in or on the building or land of another person, then, notwithstanding any rule of law, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) no legal proceedings shall, after the passing of this Act, be instituted in any court by the injured person or any person claiming through or under him or as his insurer against such other person on account of such damage;

GM228

Most policies with third party are also usually covered for accidental fire and theft, the Act simply prevents legal proceedings against the owner of property and would have no bearing on an insurance policy paying out (where fire and theft included).

The Act is not absolute, it only applies to purely accidental fires, if there was negligence involved even by say a contractor then it does not apply.

unkel

coylemj wrote: »

If it does, it means that anyone who lost their car and had third party cover only is screwed.

I presume so. They only covered themselves for 3rd party risks - car goes up in flames or is stolen, you get nothing

If you want to be covered of fire / theft, you take out 3rd party, fire & theft.

And if you want to be insured against you damaging your own car as well as the above, you take out fully comprehensive

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

Policies with third party are also usually covered for accidental fire and theft....

Therre is such a thing as a 'third party only' policy.

GM228 wrote: »

.... the Act simply prevents legal proceedings against the owner of property and would have no bearing on an insurance policy paying out.

My point is that without your own cover and being in no way at fault, you could be left with a serious financial loss as a result of this fire.

unkel

coylemj wrote: »

you could be left with a serious financial loss as a result of this fire.

Surely nobody would be stupid enough to insure a car for third party only when it has serious financial value?

Fully comp is usually not much more than 10% extra

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

Therre is such a thing as a 'third party only' policy.



My point is that without your own cover and being in no way at fault, you could be left with a serious financial loss as a result of this fire.

Indeed, I had edited my post to state most policies, but yes assuming the fire was purely accidental and there is no question of negligence or arson etc then someone with third party only would have no recourse against the owner.

Widdensushi

unkel wrote: »

Surely nobody would be stupid enough to insure a car for third party only when it has serious financial value?

Fully comp is usually not much more than 10% extra

that's a different discussion though, I would have thought that the cars that were burned would be able to claim off the car that started the fires insurance. Surely they won't have increased premiums because they were unlucky enough to park near a zafira.Soon there will be levels of the multistory carpark for zafira. If you were parking near one today it would have to enter your head.

unkel

Widdensushi wrote: »

I would have thought that the cars that were burned would be able to claim off the car that started the fires insurance

I would have thought so too

GM228

Widdensushi wrote: »

that's a different discussion though, I would have thought that the cars that were burned would be able to claim off the car that started the fires insurance. Surely they won't have increased premiums because they were unlucky enough to park near a zafira.Soon there will be levels of the multistory carpark for zafira. If you were parking near one today it would have to enter your head.

If the fire started in another vehicle as has been reported then the insurer of that vehicle is liable for damage to the other vehicles and the property, with an estimated €60M+ bill I could see some court actions from the insurer desperately trying to limit their liability.

FishOnABike

unkel wrote: »

Surely nobody would be stupid enough to insure a car for third party only when it has serious financial value?

Fully comp is usually not much more than 10% extra

On an older car fully comprehensive insurance can often be cheaper than third party only.

unkel

Tell me about it. I've had €400 bangers insured comprehensively. I have never had anything but fully comp. Many other benefits. Free changeover of car with no admin charges (unless you are insured by cowboys like 123.ie or Liberty), no fault claims that do not take away your NCB claims like theft and windscreen. Free towaway service, claims that are your fault but have NCB protection, etc.

thebiglad

Relatively recent decision by CJEU - insurers of the car which started the fire (presuming they can prove which one it was) will be liable - there are limits in EU law for the amount of damages payable (Irish Insurers will cover €30m).

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=64e62fcf-537a-44d0-bf69-fcf40198c836

As this involved a Zafira (I heard over weekend) then Opel may also be involved - there is a 'known' issue with these vehicles, whether the vehicle was recalled and the current owner failed to return it for a check by Opel may be a matter of defence.

Widdensushi

GM228 wrote: »

If the fire started in another vehicle as has been reported then the insurer of that vehicle is liable for damage to the other vehicles and the property, with an estimated €60M+ bill I could see some court actions from the insurer desperately trying to limit their liability.

alot of the cars might be with the same insurer anyway, either way those insurance firms are required to have a large amount of cash available for incidents like this.

GM228

Widdensushi wrote: »

alot of the cars might be with the same insurer anyway, either way those insurance firms are required to have a large amount of cash available for incidents like this.

Being with the same insurer makes no odds, they still have a liability.

We all know insurance companies have plenty of money, they just don't like paying out that cash, especially when the bill is in the millions.

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

If the fire started in another vehicle as has been reported then the insurer of that vehicle is liable for damage to the other vehicles and the property, with an estimated €60M+ bill I could see some court actions from the insurer desperately trying to limit their liability.

By 'as has been reported', are you referring to the suggestion doing the rounds (including a thread over in Motors) that a car (Zafira) with a known fault started the fire and therefore the owner is liable for all of the damage?

Or are you saying that (assuming no negligence) the Accidental Fires Act does not apply, regardless?

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

By 'as has been reported', are you referring to the suggestion doing the rounds (including a thread over in Motors) that a car (Zafira) with a known fault started the fire and therefore the owner is liable for all of the damage?

Or are you saying that (assuming no negligence) the Accidental Fires Act does not apply, regardless?

As had been reported is in relation to the rumour doing the rounds.

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

As had been reported is in relation to the rumour doing the rounds.

If any old car (with no fault known to the owner or the manufacturer) had ignited and caused that fire, would the Accidental Fires Act 1943 apply in respect of collateral damage to other cars?

hullaballoo

It's a bit more nuanced than simply stating the owner of the car that went on fire first, if such a thing happened, assumes all liability here.

It's not for me or anyone here to apportion liability even if all facts were fully available. Depending on the news source, you get different versions of events. None seem particularly reliable, which is standard for news outlets these days.

One I read earlier claimed that a Zafira owner parked the car while smoke was coming from the bonnet and apparently sought the assistance of shopping center staff to put it out. In such a case, if the staff failed or refused to act, there may be a portion of liability with them.

More so, the manufacturer may bear the brunt of any liability but that will depend on myriad other factors that are simply unknown publicly (or perhaps anywhere) at this stage.

There is also the possibility here that the car park building might not be as fire resistant as it ought to be - purely speculation yes - and that is a possible factor that could effect the apportionment of liability.

You can take it that any views on potential liability here are given on the basis of supposition only because the information necessary to estimate liability is simply not there.

coylemj

hullaballoo wrote: »

One I read earlier claimed that a Zafira owner parked the car while smoke was coming from the bonnet and apparently sought the assistance of shopping center staff to put it out. In such a case, if the staff failed or refused to act, there may be a portion of liability with them.

A security guy spotted the fire starting on CCTV and took steps to prevent people going to that floor. In the circumstances, that is as much as you could expect. Because a car goes up in flames very fast and there is a low ceiling (and with no solid walls, lots of oxygen) in a multistorey car park which increases the risk of smoke inhalation for anyone going near the fire.

hullaballoo

Well a good portion of my post was on the point that no one really knows what happened, but you have set out as if it's an incontrovertible fact that a security guard took certain steps and then you have gone on to conclude that those steps were reasonable in all of the circumstances. The implication being that the shopping center has no liability.

But the reality is we don't know whether a security guard saw CCTV and acted; whether those purported actions were sufficient; whether the security guard was adequately trained in fire safety; whether the building was appropriately up-to-regulation-standard for fire resistance etc.

I suppose my general point is that there are big issues here that are unknown and with the best will in the world, media reports cannot be trusted at this stage to allow us to have a meaningful discussion on the basis of established facts.

coylemj

hullaballoo wrote: »

Well a good portion of my post was on the point that no one really knows what happened, but you have set out as if it's an incontrovertible fact that a security guard took certain steps and then you have gone on to conclude that those steps were reasonable in all of the circumstances.

Maybe you missed the early reports of the incident, this from the Irish Times .........

Supt O’Sullivan said the car’s owner had spotted it on fire at about 6.30pm and raised the alarm. Security personnel sealed off the parking area and began evacuating the shopping centre.
.....

“The fact that there was no one injured in this blaze is down firstly to the prompt response of the security staff who began evacuating everyone immediately once they realised there was a fire – that was critical and great credit is due to them for getting everyone out,” he said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/up-to-60-cars-scorched-in-accidental-cork-car-park-blaze-1.4004015

Your post speculated on whether the Zafira owner sought assistance to put the fire out. Clearly the security people got their priorities right.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's a bit more nuanced than simply stating the owner of the car that went on fire first, if such a thing happened, assumes all liability here.

To note it is not the owner, rather the owners insurer who is liable to compensate for damage and property caused by the owners vehicle as required by law, that however does not limit the insurers right for subrogation.

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's not for me or anyone here to apportion liability even if all facts were fully available. Depending on the news source, you get different versions of events. None seem particularly reliable, which is standard for news outlets these days.

One I read earlier claimed that a Zafira owner parked the car while smoke was coming from the bonnet and apparently sought the assistance of shopping center staff to put it out. In such a case, if the staff failed or refused to act, there may be a portion of liability with them.

More so, the manufacturer may bear the brunt of any liability but that will depend on myriad other factors that are simply unknown publicly (or perhaps anywhere) at this stage.

There is also the possibility here that the car park building might not be as fire resistant as it ought to be - purely speculation yes - and that is a possible factor that could effect the apportionment of liability.

You can take it that any views on potential liability here are given on the basis of supposition only because the information necessary to estimate liability is simply not there.

Any issues of such liabilities is for the insurer to persue under subrogation, there is a legal obligation for the insurer to cover third party losses to a particular value, that can only be negated when damage is caused entirely by an act of the victim or force majeure, a fault with the vehicle is not considered force majeure as per the ECJ and so it does not absolve the insurer of their requirement to compensate (though they still retain the right of subrogation).

L1011

If we take the claimed situation that the first car was an Opel Zafira; known to have fire issues but many recall reminders deep here - what kind of liability situation is there on the manufacturer if any?

Also, would any liability rest with General Motors, who built the car; or PSA who now own the brand and are looking after the remaining recalls - or is that likely to be covered by the specific sales contract?

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

If any old car (with no fault known to the owner or the manufacturer) had ignited and caused that fire, would the Accidental Fires Act 1943 apply in respect of collateral damage to other cars?

The Act would apply assuming it is accidental, however if the vehicle is insured the vehicle insurer is liable for any damage.

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

If we take the claimed situation that the first car was an Opel Zafira; known to have fire issues but many recall reminders deep here - what kind of liability situation is there on the manufacturer if any?

It probably very much depends on the nature of the fault (if any), the steps taken to mitigate (i.e are they reasonable), questions of negligence during manufacture etc, the steps the owner took to comply, the actions of the owner etc. Too many variables at play to answer.

L1011 wrote: »

Also, would any liability rest with General Motors, who built the car; or PSA who now own the brand and are looking after the remaining recalls - or is that likely to be covered by the specific sales contract?

Good question, does the new owner assume any liabilities or is it retained by the original manufacturer, it may well come down to a contractual clause when PSA took over? I suspect Peregrinus will be able to give a better insight into such liabilities where brand ownership or manufacturing rights have changed.

Peregrinus

In principle it depends on the structure of the deal by which PSM acquired the business from GM. In practice, regerdless of the formal structure, it depends on the terms of the deal, which in turn depend on how anxious GM was to sell, and how anxious PSA was to buy.

Let me explain:

If the car was manufactured by a GM subsidiary, which is liable for manufacturing defects, and PSA bought all the shares in that subsidiary, then PSA now owns a subsidiary which still has the liability.

But part of the deal might have been that GM would indemnify PSA for any "hidden liabilities" relating to problems that arose on GM's watch and that weren't disclosed to PSA at the time of the sale. I've no idea whether there was such a clause in the deal. If there was, depending on the exact facts and the exact terms of the clause PSA might have a go at seeking to reclaim from GM any amount their subsidiary has to pay out because of this incident. But that's a matter between PSA and GM; it wouldn't affect any claimant.

On the other hand, suppose PSA didn't buy the company that manufactured the car, but simply bought the ownership of the brand, the intellectual property in all the manufacturing processes, the factories in which the vehicle is produced, the stocks in hand, etc, etc. Instead of buying the shares in the GM company that conducted the business, they bought the assets of the business, and started to use those assets to run the business themselves.

In an assets transaction of this kind, your aim is only to buy the assets, not the liabilities, so in principle if there's an exising actual or potential liablity for dodgy cars manufactured on GM's watch, that liability stays with the now-dormant GM subsidiary company that used to carry on the business.

But, again, there may have been a term in the deal in which PSA indemnifies GM for any claims arising out of this problem, which GM discloses as part of the negotations for the sale. All other things being equal, obviously, PSA would rather not accept such a term, but it may be necessary to do so in order to get GM to agree to the sale. So if there is such a clause, depending again on its exact terms and on the exact facts, the loss might end up with PSA.

So the answer is: PSA and GM will have thought about this at the time of the sale of the business, will have argued about it, and will have made a deal which allocates the liablity to one or other of them. But we have no way of knowing whidh or them. The outcome of the argument will reflect the priorities and bargaining positions of the two parties.

None of this affects the person with the claim. He just sues the owner of the exploding car, who sues the entity that sold the car to him, who sues ... all the way back up the chain. At the top of the chain either PSA or GM ends up having to shell out and having no-one to sue, but the claimant doesn't care about that.

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

If the fire started in another vehicle as has been reported then the insurer of that vehicle is liable for damage to the other vehicles and the property, with an estimated €60M+ bill I could see some court actions from the insurer desperately trying to limit their liability.

But aren't motor policies typically limited to about €10m per incidednt?

FishOnABike wrote: »

On an older car fully comprehensive insurance can often be cheaper than third party only.

How come?

coylemj wrote: »

Because a car goes up in flames very fast and there is a low ceiling (and with no solid walls, lots of oxygen) in a multistorey car park which increases the risk of smoke inhalation for anyone going near the fire.

Ventilation of fumes is generally better than preventing oxygen getting to the fire, unless that preventing oxygen getting to the fire puts the fire out. Preventing oxygen getting to the fire means that you just have a build-up of very hot semi-combusted fumes, which will ignite when they get more oxygen.

thebiglad

Victor wrote: »

But aren't motor policies typically limited to about €10m per incidednt?

Limit is €30m

colm_mcm

L1011 wrote: »

If we take the claimed situation that the first car was an Opel Zafira; known to have fire issues but many recall reminders deep here - what kind of liability situation is there on the manufacturer if any?

Also, would any liability rest with General Motors, who built the car; or PSA who now own the brand and are looking after the remaining recalls - or is that likely to be covered by the specific sales contract?

If it was the heater resistor fault, wouldn’t the smoke have been in the cabin?

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

The Act would apply assuming it is accidental, however if the vehicle is insured the vehicle insurer is liable for any damage.

I'm the OP, the discussion I kicked off (see my first post) is from the perspective of a car owner who has third party cover only and who's car was damaged as a result of a fire in another car.

The Act only applies when the fire occcurs 'in or on the building or land of another person'. Which means that if you were parked on the high street and an adjacent car fire damaged your car, you would have to claim off his insurance. But if it happened (totally by accident, no neglience) in a privately owned car park (standalone or shopping centre) then the act would apply and you'd be screwed.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

The Act would apply assuming it is accidental, however if the vehicle is insured the vehicle insurer is liable for any damage.

But they said "known fault". So someone would be negligent, if that fault caused the fire no?
Opel: If they have put remedial works in place that were substandard. Owner had no notification of recall.
Garage: If they did not follow procedure for recall repair
Owner: If they ignored a recall notice.

GM228

Victor wrote: »

But aren't motor policies typically limited to about €10m per incidednt?

The statutory legal minimum is €1.2M, but most (if not all) insurers cover €30M.

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

I'm the OP, the discussion I kicked off (see my first post) is from the perspective of a car owner who has third party cover only and who's car was damaged as a result of a fire in another car.

The Act only applies when the fire occcurs 'in or on the building or land of another person'. Which means that if you were parked on the high street and an adjacent car fire damaged your car, you would have to claim off his insurance. But if it happened (totally by accident, no neglience) in a privately owned car park (standalone or shopping centre) then the act would apply and you'd be screwed.

The Act only limits the liability of the owner of the building or land, not the owner of the vehicle which caused (allegedly) the fire.

Under the common law the owner of any property is liable for damage caused by fire escaping from their property, the Act simply limited the common law in relation to owners of land and buildings only where it is accidental.

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

The Act only applies when the fire occcurs 'in or on the building or land of another person'. Which means that if you were parked on the high street and an adjacent car fire damaged your car, you would have to claim off his insurance. But if it happened (totally by accident, no neglience) in a privately owned car park (standalone or shopping centre) then the act would apply and you'd be screwed.

But the street is someone else's land also (unless its your land).

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

But the street is someone else's land also (unless its your land).

Can 'person' include a county council?

hullaballoo

coylemj wrote: »

Can 'person' include a county council?

(c) Person. “Person” shall be read as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons, as well as an individual, and the subsequent use of any pronoun in place of a further use of “person” shall be read accordingly;

S. 18 of the Interpretation Act 2005.

County Council is a statutory body corporate.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

Can 'person' include a county council?

Yes.

But the County Council is not the owner or occupier of the street and so (even apart from the Accidental Fires Act) wouldn't have any liablity to a person injured by a fire accidentally occurring in the street.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the County Council is not the owner or occupier of the street

While the land under many streets is owned by the adjacent land owners or a management company (in modern, housing estate-type neighbourhood centres, etc.), surely there are some streets owned by councils?

and so (even apart from the Accidental Fires Act) wouldn't have any liablity to a person injured by a fire accidentally occurring in the street.

What of a fire started at the negligent end of accidentally, e.g. an excessive build-up of rotting rubbish self-igniting on a hot summers day or a fire caused by road works?

GM228

Victor wrote: »

While the land under many streets is owned by the adjacent land owners or a management company (in modern, housing estate-type neighbourhood centres, etc.), surely there are some streets owned by councils?

I think any such streets are State lands, but vested to the relevant authority.

Victor wrote: »

What of a fire started at the negligent end of accidentally, e.g. an excessive build-up of rotting rubbish self-igniting on a hot summers day or a fire caused by road works?

There is no negligent end of accident when it comes to damage by fire, if there is any negligence (save by a "stranger") then the fire is not an accidental fire.

The issue of course is who is negligent (assuming there is negligence) in such a case you outlined.

NUTLEY BOY

IMHO the issue of liability for spreading fire falls in to 4 propositions ;

1. Accidental ignition + accidental spread.
2. Accidental ignition + negligent spread.
3. Negligent ignition + accidental spread.
4. Negligent ignition + negligent spread.

By "accidental" I mean the absence of negligence.
As I read it a defendant would only escape liability under proposition 1.

I expect that the Accidental Fires Act might not assist the motorist in whose car the fire started or the owners of the premises as already argued above by coylemj and GM228.
Link to act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1943/act/8/enacted/en/print

That said, I have a slight quibble with the expression "fire accidentally occurring" as mentioned in the act.
Does the act mean without negligence in any link of the chain of causation ? The act is silent on this. Any case law on this ?
A fire can occur accidently but by an act of negligence.

I heard one argument mooted on Rylands -v- Fletcher.
The basic premise was that a car park might be said to be a collection of material [vehicles] and that it might constitute non-natural use.
I doubt this argument and would contend that it would not apply anyhow as there has been no spread from the premises of collected material as distinct from fire i.e. the owners of the building did not collect and store fire.

I see no basis for any automatic assumption of liability, in negligence, attaching to the owner of vehicle.

However, on a point of evidence, could res ipsa loquitor be argued against the owner of the vehicle on the principles as set out in Scott -v- London and St. Katherine Docks Co 1865 ? i.e.
1. The thing causing the damage was under the sole control of the defendant.
2. The event could not have occurred in the absence of negligence.
3. There must be no other adequate or reasonable excuse for what happened outside of the defendant's negligence.

The res ipsa argument might be a bit harsh.
Cars can go on fire in the absence of negligence.
Exhibit A - the suspect car - has probably been burned to a crisp anyhow and that is a point which could cut both ways.
If res ipsa applies the defendant will probably have no forensic evidence to rebut the presumption.
In the alternative, if res ipsa does not apply, the prospective plaintiffs [car owners and premises owners] will have no evidence on which to ground their cases in negligence.

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

IMHO the issue of liability for spreading fire falls in to 4 propositions ;

1. Accidental ignition + accidental spread.
2. Accidental ignition + negligent spread.
3. Negligent ignition + accidental spread.
4. Negligent ignition + negligent spread.

By "accidental" I mean the absence of negligence.
As I read it a defendant would only escape liability under proposition 1.

I expect that the Accidental Fires Act might not assist the motorist in whose car the fire started or the owners of the premises as already argued above by coylemj and GM228.
Link to act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1943/act/8/enacted/en/print

At common law the owner of property is strictly liable for any damage to others property caused by escape of fire from their property except as covered by the Act (and except fire caused by a stranger). This common law liability stems originally from the Beaulieu vs Finglam (1)(1401), Y.B. 2 Hen case and was confirmed in the High Court Rutledge vs Land [1930] IR 537 case:-

I am of opinion that, whatever its origin may have been, the fire which caused the damage occurred accidentally, and was not due to any negligence or want of care on the part of the defendant or of any person in his employment or for whose actions he was responsible.

The plaintiff, nevertheless, contends that, according to the common law, every person is responsible for damage caused by fire originating on his property, and Mr. Geoghegan submitted that this doctrine was subject to only one exception: namely, where the fire was caused by the act of some third party. I am satisfied that this contention is well founded, but the hardships, which might be occasioned by such a rule of law, are obvious, and the Legislatures, both of this country and of Great Britain, passed statutes for the purpose of providing against such hardships

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

That said, I have a slight quibble with the expression "fire accidentally occurring" as mentioned in the act.
Does the act mean without negligence in any link of the chain of causation ? The act is silent on this. Any case law on this ?
A fire can occur accidently but by an act of negligence.

It would appear to be any chain of events weather it be the actual starting or the escaping of the fire from property. In the UK Court of Appeal H & N Emanuel vs Greater London Council & Ors [1971] 2 All ER 835 case it was stated:-

After considering the cases, it is my opinion that the occupier of a house or land is liable for the escape of fire which is due to the negligence not only of his servants, but also of his independent contractors and of his guests, and of anyone who is there with his leave or licence

Osborough, Nial. “LIABILITY IN TORT FOR UNINTENDED FIRE DAMAGE.” Irish Jurist (1966-), vol. 6, no. 2, 1971, pp. 205–216 makes a point on what is considered accidental:-

In England it has been made clear that the immunity conferred by the equivalent Act extends only to fires which are caused by mere chance or are incapable of being traced to any cause. In Ireland, too, it has been assumed that any immunity is lost once negligence is shown

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I heard one argument mooted on Rylands -v- Fletcher.
The basic premise was that a car park might be said to be a collection of material [vehicles] and that it might constitute non-natural use.
I doubt this argument and would contend that it would not apply anyhow as there has been no spread from the premises of collected material as distinct from fire i.e. the owners of the building did not collect and store fire.

I see no basis for any automatic assumption of liability, in negligence, attaching to the owner of vehicle.

However, on a point of evidence, could res ipsa loquitor be argued against the owner of the vehicle on the principles as set out in Scott -v- London and St. Katherine Docks Co 1865 ? i.e.
1. The thing causing the damage was under the sole control of the defendant.
2. The event could not have occurred in the absence of negligence.
3. There must be no other adequate or reasonable excuse for what happened outside of the defendant's negligence.

The res ipsa argument might be a bit harsh.
Cars can go on fire in the absence of negligence.
Exhibit A - the suspect car - has probably been burned to a crisp anyhow and that is a point which could cut both ways.
If res ipsa applies the defendant will probably have no forensic evidence to rebut the presumption.
In the alternative, if res ipsa does not apply, the prospective plaintiffs [car owners and premises owners] will have no evidence on which to ground their cases in negligence.

You mention Fletcher, good call. From the Supreme Court Richardson vs Athlone Woollen Mills [1942] 1 I.R. 581 case:-

I do not find it necessary to discuss the common law of England as to liability for damage caused by accidental fire, illustrated by the cases cited in the course of the argument, or the statutes of the English Parliament that altered the law:—6 Anne, c. 31, and 14 Geo. 3, c. 78. I think it is sufficient to say that the Irish statute recites that by the common law of this kingdom the person in whose "house" a fire accidentally happened was liable to pay compensation for the damage caused thereby, and that the statute is a remedial one, enacted with the object—as it declares—of preventing the impoverishment and utter ruin that frequently resulted from the enforcement of such liability

In my opinion, therefore, the Act only limits the common law liability in the case of the accidental burning of a dwelling-house or dwelling-houses and is of no assistance to the defendants

It is difficult, at this stage, to say with any certainty upon what principle the common law doctrine was based. One theory is that it was based upon presumed negligence; but the mere statement of the doctrine would appear to negative the idea of negligence. A more reasonable theory would appear to be that it had its origin in some such principle as that recognised in the well-known case of Fletcher v. Rylands , viz. , that if a person keeps upon his land anything which is likely to do mischief if it escape, he is answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. No doubt, these cases are sometimes treated as being founded upon negligence; but negligence, either in the keeping, or in connection with the escape, of the commodity, does not form any part of the gist of the action. If, as I am inclined to think, the doctrine was founded upon that principle, it may well have been considered unduly harsh and improper to continue it in connection with the keeping of domestic fires in dwelling-houses, where they were absolutely essential for the ordinary purposes of life.

This case dealt with the common law liability of property owners and how it was limited by the Act for preventing Mischief that may happen by fire 1715. As a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling the 1715 Act was repealed and the Accidental Fires Act 1943 was enacted to further modify the common law liability to any building or land owner instead of just owners of a dwelling house.