Court of Appeal Confirms Liability in Tragic Fire Case and Awards Increased Damages

Jan 23, 2025 | Publication

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Latest Insights

What is the process involved in making a Will?

A Will is an essential document that applies once you have passed away.  It sets out your wishes in relation to all sorts of things including who is to control your affairs, who is to receive your net assets, who is to look after any children under 18 years, how...

What types of business structures are there?

There are various types of business structures, each with their own legal, tax and operational considerations.  These include: 1                    Sole...

Partnership Disputes – Causes and Resolution

Partnerships are a common business structure.  Frequently we see disputes where one or more partners wishes to leave the partnership, and financial and other disputes relating to a partnership.  Understanding the causes of these disputes and how they can be...

What Types of Claims can be made on a Deceased Estate?

A deceased estate has a range of potential claims that can be made against it.  These arise not only from the actions of the deceased but also from legislation that deals with how deceased estates are administered and distributed. Some examples of potential...

Fundamentals of Companies – Getting the Basics Right

A company is a separate legal entity, being an artificial person that only ceases to exist via the hands of its members or via government intervention.  A company’s personality is expressed in its constitution and enables the members of the company to combine...

Loss of chance

In the landmark decision of Tabet v Gett [2010] 240 CLR 537, the High Court of Australia provided crucial insights into the principles of causation in negligence claims. This case is pivotal for understanding how courts assess the direct link between alleged...

Webinar – How to Reduce the Risk of a Claim on Your Estate

Join us for an informative seminar on "How to Reduce the Risk of a Claim on Your Estate" via Zoom on Thursday, 5 September at 8 pm. This one-hour complimentary session, including a Q&A segment, will provide valuable insights and practical strategies to safeguard...

New Industrial Manslaughter laws in NSW

The Industrial Manslaughter Bill has passed NSW Parliament and will make industrial manslaugther an offence. According to the NSW government, since 2019 more than 300 workers have been killed in NSW.  Under the new law, a business or individual can be held...