Personal injury sheriff awards £149k to woman after faulty phone battery caused fire in her home

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC EDIN 40
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Robert D M Fife

Denise Parks raised a claim for personal injury and property damage against LG Electronics UK Ltd based on a breach of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Most heads of damages had been agreed by the parties, with the proof focusing on the issue of liability, which the defender denied.

The claim was heard by Sheriff Robert Fife in the All-Scotland Personal Injury Court. Swanney, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and McGregor KC for the defender.

New and undamaged

At around 3:00am on 31 October 2018, a fire broke out within the living room of the pursuer’s home in Coatbridge. When the pursuer and her husband retired to bed, they left two mobile phones and a laptop on the arm of their sofa, one of which was an LG K8 given to the pursuer by her employer, North Lanarkshire Council, about six months earlier. Each of these devices was plugged into an extension socket on the wall behind the sofa to charge.

As a result of the fire, the pursuer was treated for smoke inhalation, and she was absent from work from 2 November 2018 to 7 February 2019. Her history of anxiety and panic attacks was exacerbated because of the fire, and she was contractually obliged to repay £2,261 in sick pay to her employer, in addition to incurring a loss of earnings of £389.16.

The fire was investigated by the pursuer’s expert witness, Darren Green, a chartered chemical engineer with extensive experience investigating fires. After examining the pursuer’s electronics, he concluded that the LG phone’s battery was the source of the fire, with the damage to the other phone and the laptop consistent with being attacked by the fire. The LG was the most severely damaged device, and the fact that it was relatively new and previously undamaged suggested a design or manufacturing fault.

Counsel for the pursuer invited the court to accept the evidence that the LG device had caused the fire and submitted that all she required to prove to establish a defect was that the phone had ignited during normal use. The phone was a 2017 model and was at most 22 months old at the time of the fire and had not been charged abnormally or with the use of an inappropriate device.

The defender submitted that it was not sufficient for the pursuer to establish the least improbable cause of the fire and contend that it must be confirmed as the actual cause. There was no analysis or explanation as to how the fire might and would spread and how that might impact the damage sustained by these devices and the sofa and why, in those circumstances, it is more likely than not that the source of the fire was a defect in the LG.

Did not meet the standard

In his decision, Sheriff Fife noted that the defender had led no evidence, and said of the pursuer’s case: “In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the defender, the court had to be cautious as to what weight, if any, could be given to the defender’s position. Nevertheless, the onus is on the pursuer to prove the fire was caused by an incendiary electrical fault within the battery of the LG; that there was a defect in the LG; and as a consequence, the defender was in breach of section 2 of the 1987 Act.”

He continued: “On the evidence I have accepted, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, I find the opinion of Mr Green to be persuasive in respect of the nature and extent of the damage to all three devices and the source of the fire. I have rejected the various propositions put forward by the defender in respect of fire patterns and how fire spreads as not supported by any expert opinion or evidence. On the balance of probabilities, the source of the fire was the LG due to an incendiary electrical fault within the battery.”

Considering what the pursuer required to prove, Sheriff Fife said: “The pursuer offered to prove there was a defect in the LG which caused the fire and that the fire was caused by an incendiary electrical fault within the battery. There is no requirement to specify or identify with accuracy or precision the defect in the product. In Mr Green’s opinion, there was probably a short circuit from the positive and negative electrode touching, which ignited heat and in turn ignited the combustible parts of the battery causing the fire. I have accepted that opinion.”

He concluded: “At the time the fire started, the LG was in normal use, being charged by a suitable charger, and in circumstances in which a standard product would not have failed. The court was entitled to draw an inference that the LG was defective. The LG did not meet the standard of safety that persons generally are entitled to expect.”

Sheriff Fife therefore granted decree against the defender in the sum of £149,496.26.