Incident Details: Jondaryan Farm 21st Birthday Party Fire

The Respondent, Charles Oswald Dearden (‘Dearden’), sustained severe burns to his upper body and limbs whilst attending a friend’s 21st birthday party at a farm near Jondaryan. The burns were caused by the actions of another guest, Robert Taylor (‘Taylor’) who deliberately put a flame from a cigarette lighter on to petrol that he had poured on Dearden’s clothing whilst Dearden was sleeping.

Dearden instituted proceedings against the Appellants (‘the Ryans’) who were owner occupiers of the farm on which the incident occurred and who were the hosts of the 21st birthday party for their son. The Ryans joined Taylor to the proceeding.

Primary Decision

At first instance, the Supreme Court of Queensland found in favour of the Dearden, holding the Ryans liable in the sum of $600,797.55. The Ryans were given judgment against Taylor for 70% of the damages.

The Court opined that liability flowed to the Ryans on account of their actions, namely leaving a jerrycan in a shed close to the party, creating a risk of danger, and that there was a foreseeable risk that a guest could utilise said jerrycan in order to start “an uncontrolled fire” and cause injury to another guest. In the Court’s conception, the scope of the duty of care owed by the Ryans’ to guests was to avoid that foreseeable risk by way of moving the jerrycan to a position “where it would not be found by someone who was wanting to start a fire at the party”.

The Primary Decision was appealed by the Ryans.

Decision on Appeal

The appeal was allowed, with the judgment for Dearden against the Ryans being set aside. Dearden’s claim was dismissed, with an order for costs made against Dearden in respect of both the proceeding in the Trial Division and of the appeal in favour of the Ryans.

As noted by the Court of Appeal, it was not in dispute that the Ryans owed a duty of care to their guests as the occupiers of the property, consistent with the decision in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479. For determination for the Court was whether the scope of that duty extended to a duty to protect someone in the position of Mr Dearden from deliberate conduct causing injury. In the view of the Court, such a duty was not owed by the Ryans, and therefore the Ryans could not be held liable for the injury.

The Court noted that, as a general rule “one man is under no duty of controlling another man to prevent his doing damage to a third”, however, there are exceptions to this general rule. Central to the primary judge’s decision was the exception of a duty in reference to things involving special danger. For the primary jude, the Ryans’ introduction of fuel from a remote location to the party, where there was a prospect that an “intoxicated irrational person may start a fire”, was conduct capable of enlivening such an exception.

The Court opined that the primary judge fell into error by finding that the general rule was displaced by the conduct of the Ryans. The Court asserted that, however foreseeable it may have been that the fuel would have been used to start a fire such as on the lawn, the risk that the fuel would be used for deliberate ignition of the clothing of a guest while he slept was an entirely different consideration, and could not be considered foreseeable. The Court further noted that fuel being kept on a rural property would be an “ordinary and unremarkable practice”. Citing Gleeson CJ in Modbury, it would be an “intolerable burden” to hold occupiers liable for the misuse of items kept ordinarily on their properties.

If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.