Legal Case Summary
Musgrove v Pandelis [1919] 2 KB 43
Escape of fire, accidental versus negligent fire
Facts
The Claimant rented rooms above a domestic garage in which the Defendant kept a car. The Defendant’s employee (his chauffeur) was instructed to clean the car and attempted to move it in order to carry out that instruction. In order to do so, he turned on the petrol tap as to facilitate the petrol flow from the tank to the carburettor. He then started the engine. However, there was an explosion and the car caught fire, specifically the carburettor. It was found by the court that if the Defendant’s employee had not panicked and had instead immediately turned off the tap, the petrol would have stopped flowing to the carburettor and the fire would have died out quickly. He did panic however and wasted time looking for a cloth, which meant that by the time he decided to turn off the tap it was not possible to contain the fire. The fire spread to the rest of the car and from there to the garage and eventually to the whole building, which destroyed the whole building. The claimant’s property above the garage was also destroyed, including his furniture.
Issues
The issues in this case were whether the car constituted a dangerous thing for the purposes of Rylands v Fletcher, whether what had been done constituted non-natural use of the land for the same purposes and whether the Defendant could rely on s.86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 which stipulated that a person will not be liable (without more) for damage caused by a fire which he started accidently.
Decision/Outcome
It was held first that s.86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 did not apply as this was a case under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and in any event the fire was not accidental but rather due to negligence. The court held further that the car with the petrol tank was a dangerous thing for the purposes of Rylands v Fletcher and therefore found liability, inter alia, because the fundamental principle was held to be that the Defendant should not use his property in such a way as to injure his neighbour.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of the 1919 decision. However, readers should be aware of two important legal developments that affect the broader context in which Musgrove v Pandelis sits.
First, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher was significantly narrowed by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264, which confirmed that the rule requires foreseeability of damage of the relevant type, and which treated the rule as a specific application of nuisance rather than a standalone tort. The House of Lords further restricted the rule in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, emphasising that the threshold for ‘non-natural use’ is high and that the rule has a very narrow modern scope. These developments mean that the ease with which liability under Rylands v Fletcher was established in Musgrove v Pandelis — particularly the finding that keeping a car with a petrol tank constituted a ‘dangerous thing’ sufficient for the rule — should be treated with caution in light of modern doctrine.
Second, s.86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 remains in force (see legislation.gov.uk), but its scope and application has been clarified in subsequent case law, including Johnson v BJW Property Developments Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 574, which confirmed that the section does not provide a defence where fire spreads due to negligence. The article’s statement on this point is therefore consistent with the current legal position.
Students should read this case in conjunction with Cambridge Water and Transco to understand the current, much more limited, scope of Rylands v Fletcher liability.
