The requirements of tort liability arising from fires are particularly complex and are defined by settled jurisprudence of our Supreme Court which has changed the criteria for the imputation of blame in the past fifteen years.
This jurisprudence requires that the harmed must prove that the fire began in the area of operation of the defendant (ORIGIN). On the other hand, if you were to prove without a doubt that the fire started in the area of property or control of the defendant, there is a reversal of the burden of proof in relation to the cause of the accident, as it is then that the defendant must prove the existence of a deliberate action by third parties (SS. June 2, 2004, to March 22, 2005) in the causation of the fire or serious and founded indications that the cause might have come from external agents, strange incident (SS. December 9, 1986, 4 June 1987, December 18, 1989, June 2, 2004 February 3, 2005) to exclude his or her liability.
Note that although this jurisprudence has looked for the almost complete objectification of responsibility, as long as the origin of the fire has been proved, by the “imputation of liability for a judgment of qualified probability” (SSTS May 22, 1999, 31 January 2000 30 November 2001 and 29 April 2002), the guilt is always present, either in some sort of negligence in the maintenance of the facilities that generate risk (in case of fire presumably) or in controlling human or industrial activity, so the test of extreme caution to avoid damage, although will not be definitive in these matters, it will certainly help to defend themselves against any possible claims or also to claim any damage resulting from fire to the responsible or the insurance company.
The tests that research causes in such problems, by experts in fire and damage assessors, are essential in this type of litigation, and COCA ADVOCATS have the best.