Sharing is caring!

In July 2017, a young man was sitting in the lounge of his brother’s flat when he heard a strange sound coming from the kitchen. Seconds later there was a loud bang and before he knew it he was engulfed in flames and trapped under a heavy piece of furniture. It turns out that there had been an explosion, caused when an incorrectly fitted flexible gas cooker pipe had fractured and allowed gas to leak out which was then ignited, possibly by a flame in the kitchen boiler.   

The injuries he sustained were devasting and will impact him for the rest of his life. He suffered burns to the majority of his body, which have left him with extensive permanent scarring and difficulty moving. His hands are severely deformed, resulting in his range of movement and grip strength being significantly reduced. He needs to have one of his fingers amputated and requires plastic surgery and intensive physiotherapy. He has also been left psychologically traumatised.

The road to recovery for him will undeniably be hard. However, thanks to the dedication of our personal injury team, and specifically our serious injury specialist Anna Rushton, this gentleman is now in line to receive significant compensation which will not only help him to fund the specialist care and treatment he needs, but also provide him with invaluable future financial security.  

But getting to this point has not been easy, as Anna explains:

“The difficulty with this case is that no one was prepared to accept liability for allowing the gas leak to happen, and as the law in this area is not clear we faced an uphill battle in trying to figure out who – if anyone – could be sued for the terrible injuries that our client had sustained.”

How the problem with the cooker arose

The cooker that had caused the explosion had been purchased by our client’s brother some time before 2014 and installed by someone who apparently did not know what they were doing, as the pipe which runs from the cooker to the gas main was installed the wrong way round.

Over time, the pipe had been exposed to stress due to its incorrect positioning and it was this that eventually led to it fracturing and resulting in a near deadly escape of gas.

Responsibility for checking the cooker

Because our client’s brother rented his flat from a housing association, there was an obligation on them as landlord to arrange for all gas fittings in the flat to be regularly inspected and to ensure that they were safely maintained. This obligation was imposed under the provisions of section 36 of The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. 

However, there was a question mark over whether section 36 necessitates checking a flexible pipe that runs from a privately owned cooker to the mains gas supply. We maintained that it did, but there was room for debate because the law on this issue is not clear and as far as we can tell there has never been a legal ruling on the point.

In any event, when we approached the housing association to ask them if they were willing to accept responsibility for failing to notice that the pipe was in a dangerous condition while carrying out their routine inspections, they said ‘no’ as they had delegated their obligations in this regard to a well-known national gas company under the terms of a privately negotiated service contract.

This therefore raised the possibility that it was the gas company we ought to sue – either for a breach of the landlord’s obligations (which they had apparently assumed) or for carrying out their inspections negligently, i.e. by not spotting a gas pipe that was in an obviously dangerous condition and by not taking the action prescribed by the Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure, which was to affix a sign to the cooker to confirm that it was ‘at risk’ or ‘immediately dangerous’ and to direct that it should no longer be used.

Who should we sue?

Because neither the housing association nor the gas company would admit liability for what had happened, and neither would they provide us with a copy of the contract they had agreed – which  would have clarified whether responsibility for complying with the section 36 obligation had indeed been effectively transferred – we had no choice but to issue a claim against them both.

This is a risky thing to do, as there is a chance that you might be ordered to pay the costs of the party who is ultimately cleared of any blame. However, in the circumstances we had no choice.

Legal points

After consulting the Health and Safety Executive, and taking advice from an experienced barrister and our own independent fire and installation pipework experts, we came to the view that the gas pipe that had caused the explosion should have been inspected under the provisions of section 36 and indeed that it had been inspected, but the engineer had failed to appreciate the danger it posed and to take appropriate action to address this risk – meaning that they had acted negligently. 

There was a suggestion by the gas company that the cooker may have been moved or interfered with between the last inspection visit and the explosion taking place, but this was dismissed as being unfeasible – not just by our expert but also by the expert appointed to act for the housing association.

Court case

To determine whether our conclusions on the legal points were correct, we applied to the court to make a ruling on the issue of liability. By doing this, we would know one way or the other who (if anyone) could be held to account for the injuries our client had sustained and then start the process of trying to strike a deal on the amount of compensation that he ought reasonably to receive. 

Breakthrough

The trial on liability was scheduled to take place towards the middle of January, but shortly before this a meeting took place between us and the gas company and after a determined effort on our part to stand our ground we are pleased to say that the gas company finally relented and agreed to pay our client compensation for the injuries caused.

We are currently compiling the evidence we need to be able to put an accurate number on the amount he should receive, but we fully expect this to run to six figures.

Impact on the client

While no amount of money can ever make up for the horrific experience our client has had to endure, and which he will continue to endure for the rest of his life, we are hopeful that the compensation he will now receive will help to make his life more comfortable and enable him to move forward in a meaningful and fulfilling way.  

It is likely to take some months before the final amount payable can be agreed, but during this time we will continue to support the client to access the care and treatment that he needs and to do so on a private basis if required to avoid unacceptably long NHS waiting times. 

Want to find out more?

If you would like more information about the gas safety regulations and the obligations that they impose on residential landlords, then please click here to read an accompanying blog that we have prepared on this subject.

And to find out more about how we can help you to pursue a serious injury claim, please call Anna on 0800 195 6412 to arrange a free, no obligation consultation.  If we think your case has a good prospect of success, we may even be able to help you on a no win, no fee basis.