In a recent ruling, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has upheld the liability of property owner James Gause, finding him negligent in the tragic death of Bradley Heafey, who died in a house fire on 8 April 2019. The case centers on Gause’s failure to ensure the smoke alarm in the rental property was operational, which contributed to the deceased being unable to escape the fire in time.
The fire occurred at a single-story home in which Heafey had been living with his partner, Tamara Alderson, and their two young children. The property had been vacant for over a year before Gause leased it to the couple on 14 February 2019. It was revealed that, prior to the fire, the smoke alarm in the loungeroom had been tampered with, with its battery and speaker removed, rendering it silent during the fire. Although the smoke alarm was connected to mains power, it activated without producing any sound, leaving Heafey unaware of the fire until it was too late. Heafey’s autopsy revealed he had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.051% and had consumed cannabis and prescribed medications, but the court noted these substances did not impair his ability to escape.
The primary judge had already ruled that Gause was negligent for failing to check that the smoke alarm was working, and that the deceased’s intoxication had impaired his capacity to escape, leading to a 25% reduction in damages awarded to the victims under section 50 of the Civil Liability Act (2002) (NSW). Gause appealed the ruling, challenging the findings of liability and the damages reduction, but the Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal to restore the full damages.
Key Findings of the Court
The Court addressed several critical issues in the case:
- Negligence and Smoke Alarm Inspection: Gause’s failure to inspect the smoke alarm was a central point in the appeal. The primary judge found that Gause did not test the smoke alarm between 14 February and 8 April 2019, despite being on the premises multiple times. The Court found that the judge was entitled to make credibility findings against Gause, particularly noting that he had never claimed to have pressed the test button during his testimony.
- Tampering with the Smoke Alarm: The Court upheld the judge’s finding that the smoke alarm had been tampered with prior to 14 February 2019. Evidence suggested that the smoke alarm had no battery, or its battery was depleted, and that the speaker had been removed. This tampering prevented the alarm from functioning properly, which contributed to the fatal outcome.
- Duty of Care and Reasonable Precaution: The Court agreed with the primary judge that Gause breached his duty of care by not ensuring the smoke alarm was operational. Given the serious risk posed by a non-functioning smoke alarm in a fire, the Court emphasized that Gause’s failure to inspect the alarm was a significant oversight. The Court found that taking reasonable steps to ensure the alarm worked was not onerous and was essential to protect the safety of the tenants.
- Intoxication and Reduction of Damages: The Court also considered whether Heafey’s intoxication justified the 25% reduction in damages. The Court disagreed with Gause’s argument that the reduction was warranted, noting that Heafey’s ability to escape the fire was not impaired by the substances in his system while he was asleep on the couch. The Court determined that the reduction in damages under section 50 of the Civil Liability Act was incorrectly applied and restored the full award of damages to the respondents.
Outcome
The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed, with the Court affirming the primary judge’s decision on liability and overturning the reduction in damages. The case underscores the importance of ensuring that smoke alarms are properly maintained and operational, particularly in rental properties, where the safety of tenants is at risk.
This decision highlights the legal obligations of landlords to maintain their properties in a safe condition, including the duty to ensure that smoke alarms are functional. It also serves as a reminder of the significant consequences that can arise from neglecting basic safety measures.
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.