Supreme Court
Action No. 150 of 1981
7th February, 1984.
Moe, J.

Mr. N. Dujon for the Plaintiff
Mr. Denys Barrow for the Defendant

Assessment of damages for loss of cane destroyed by fire started by Plaintiff - Special duty to guard against spread of fire Quantum of damages - How assessed.

JUDGMENT

In this Action the Plaintiff claimed damages for the loss and damage he sustained as a result of the burning of his cane field due to the negligence of the Defendant, his servants or agents. The Defendant while admitting the burning of the Plaintiff's canes denied that it was caused by his negligence or that of his servants or agents.

The evidence was clear that the Plaintiff's canes in a field adjacent to and west of the Fox Highway were burnt on the 11th February, 1981. There was also evidence which I accepted that canes in a field of the Defendant burnt on the said 11th February, and there was a trace of fire between that field of the Defendant and the Plaintiff's field which burnt. I also accepted the evidence that there were signs that the fire had traveled from the Defendant's field to the Plaintiffs field. In addition I found that the Defendant admitted to the Plaintiff that the fire in the Plaintiff's field came from his (the Defendant's) field.

There was undisputed evidence that the Defendant and his workers burnt a field of his on the night of the 10th February, 1981. The Plaintiff's evidence was that he couldn't say whether the fire in that field was extinguished that night. The Defendant said in examination-in-Chief that the field was completely out before he and his workers left that night. I found that assertion of the Defendant to be qualified by his admission in cross-examination that they burnt at night and couldn't see if the area he wanted to burn was all burnt. I drew the inference that it was also probable that he nor his workers could see whether all fire was out. i.e. they might have been embers. A field beside that field burnt on the 11th. There was a trace of ashes from the field partially burnt on the 10th to the field burnt on the 11th. On the evidence left before me I came to the conclusion that the burning on the 11th was a result of the burning on the 10th which itself was due to a deliberate act of the Defendant's workers. This act of burning was on the instruction and under supervision of the Defendant himself.

Fire is a dangerous thing and the law recognizes a special duty to guard against an escape of fire. See Balfour v. Barty-King [1957] 1 Q.B. 496. There was a duty on the Defendant and his workers to take care to ensure that the fire which they caused on the Defendant's land did not spread to the Plaintiff's field. This they failed to do. I held the Defendant liable for the damage caused to the Plaintiff's canes by the fire which spread from the Defendant's field to the Plaintiff's field.

Thirty acres of canes of the Plaintiff were burnt. I found that the Plaintiff did not get returns from 15 of those acres. Those acres would have produced 300 tons of cane from which the plaintiff could have earned $16,347.00. Evidence was that his expenses would have been $20.00 on every ton. His net returns would therefore have been $10,347.00. I award him the sum of $10,347.00 damages and he is to have his costs.

----------OO----------