FAI sheriff recommends Scottish government consider requirement for fire suppression systems in historic building hotels

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] FAI 1
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Thomas McCartney

Simon Midgley and Richard Dyson had been staying at the Cameron House Hotel near Loch Lomond, owned by Cameron House Resort (Loch Lomond) Ltd, when a fire broke out in the early hours of the morning in a concierge cupboard. Both men died either at the hotel or en route to hospital.

The inquiry was conducted by Sheriff Thomas McCartney. Jessop KC appeared for the Crown and Gray KC appeared for the hotel’s operators.

Difficulties in evacuating

The deceased were partners who lived in London. Mr Midgley worked as a freelance travel journalist, and it was in the course of his writing work that the two were booked to stay at the hotel for two nights arriving on 16 December 2017. At the time the hotel was comprised of a main building which was an 18th century B-listed building and modern extensions to both sides and the rear.

On the morning of 18 December 2017, a night porter, Mr O’Malley, removed the ash from the open fires in the hotel’s front reception and restaurant and placed that ash in a plastic bag containing the ash from the previous night. That bag was placed within a concierge cupboard in a corridor just off the entrance foyer at around 4am. At 6:39am a “pre-alarm” fire alarm sounded within the reception area, which prompted the discovery of the fire by Mr O’Malley.

As the fire spread to the main hallway, guests in the hotel’s main building encountered difficulties in evacuating the building. When the fire brigade arrived firefighters were able to rescue some guests who had not been able to escape, however the hotel’s night manager had exited the building without removing the guest list. It was not until 8:09am that it was recorded that the deceased were still missing. They were subsequently found within the building but did not survive the fire.

It was concluded by the post-fire investigation that an ember within the ash bag had melted the plastic and gone on to ignite other combustible items within the concierge cupboard such as the kindling stored for the next day’s fire. It was found that after a previous fire risk assessment in 2016, awareness of the need for a written policy in respect of the open fires was lost, resulting in the continuation of ad hoc methods for emptying ash from them by night porters.

It was submitted for the Crown that the overall period from the alarm activating until it was established that the deceased were unaccounted for far exceeded the anticipated time and there had been defects in the evacuation procedure. Additionally, the evidence supported a determination that it would have been a reasonable precaution for a sprinkler system to have been installed in the hotel, and this would have slowed the spread of the fire.

Rapid spread of flames

In his determination, Sheriff McCartney said of the evacuation procedure: “Given the almost inevitable additional difficulties of a real night-time emergency as opposed to a planned day-time drill, it is not surprising that the estimated length of a day-time planned drill would be exceeded. I conclude that all involved in the evacuation and roll call were doing their best in difficult and distressing circumstances. There was no criticism of the evacuation procedure by any Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Report or in the evidence of any witness.”

He continued: “The evidence does not on the balance of probability establish a real or lively possibility that the deaths might have been avoided had a different procedure been followed. There is uncertainty as to the precise time of death of both Mr Midgley and Mr Dyson. The evidence does not support a finding in respect of the evacuation and roll call that there were precautions which could reasonably have been taken which, had they been taken, might realistically have resulted in the deaths being avoided.”

On whether it would have been reasonable to install a fire suppression system, the sheriff said: “I have determined that a sprinkler system would have been a precaution which could reasonably have been taken and which had it been taken might realistically have resulted in the deaths of Mr Dyson and Mr Midgley being avoided. The evidence of hotel guests and firefighters as to the impact of smoke and fire on breathing and visibility was powerful. It is a clear inference from the evidence that was the atmosphere with which Mr Midgley and Mr Dyson were confronted on leaving their room.”

He concluded: “Notwithstanding the provision of an alarm system and early instigation of firefighting operations, there was a rapid spread of flames as a result of the particular constructional arrangements at the Hotel. Smoke was rapidly apparent in the upper floor corridors serving guest bedrooms, leading to panic and a measure of confusion on the part of the occupants. Some considered the corridors to be untenable. Others attempted to leave by routes which were not the most direct and, as a result, found themselves in areas of greater risk. There is a need for other measures to control the initial flame spread in such cases in order to protect occupants.”

Sheriff McCartney therefore recommended that the Scottish government should consider introducing additional requirements for active fire suppression systems in historic buildings used as hotels, with an expert working group established to fully explore the special risks these types of building may pose.