Vacuum cleaner turned fireball damages car,..

pulliptears

You do tend to go onto autopilot in these situations. My friend and I were camped at a festival once, she lit the gas stove and there was a fault on one of the pipes, the whole thing went up in a fireball. Instinct takes over and I kicked the stove across the field. Funny now to see this fireball of a camping stove fly across a field but had anyone been camped opposite at the time it would have been a different story.

esuhl

Esqui wrote: »

I don't think you have much of a claim for the car, as from what you say your partner saw the vacuum cleaner catch fire, and then unplug it, run downstairs and drop it next to the car? I think that's going to be one of those unfortunate happenings.

arcon5 wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with Esqui here tbh. Had it damaged the carpet, curtains, other property in the room in which it happened you'd most likely have a case for the damage. But having dragged a fire ball through the house and therefore causing damage to other property rather than going straight for water to distinguish the fire does complicate things somewhat.

I honestly can't believe those comments. The vacuum cleaner was (presumably) being used correctly, and a fault caused damage to the owner's property. It may have been inadvisable to drop the burning machine next to a car, but if it had been left in the house it may have caused more damage (6ft flames?!) and burnt the place to the ground.

In any case, I don't think the actions of the OP's partner could be considered reckless or negligent, so they absolutely have a claim (in my uneducated opinion!).

From what I can work out, although the retailer has breached the Sale of Goods Act in supplying faulty goods (and so they would be liable for repairing/replacing the faulty vacuum cleaner), your rights to claim for the fire damage would be with the manufacturer (or importer if they're outside the UK) under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, so long as the damage amounts to more than £275.

More info here: http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/consumer/consumer_protection/139.html

Whatever you do, take lots of photos of the damage (both to the car and the cleaner itself), as they will help your claim.

(P.S. I'm not a lawyer - this is just how I would approach the situation.)

dan_l

texranger wrote: »

flames will ignite petrol fumes. which i mentioned as it is the fumes that are the dangerous part

Have I missed the part where the OP said putting it next to the car was the safest option? They wanted to put it outside which I'm sure we can agree is safer than leaving it in the house but couldn't hold it any longer.

It's all well and good sitting infront of the computer saying what they should have done but it's a bit different in real life when you are holding an item that's on fire.

texranger

dan_l wrote: »

Have I missed the part where the OP said putting it next to the car was the safest option? They wanted to put it outside which I'm sure we can agree is safer than leaving it in the house but couldn't hold it any longer.

It's all well and good sitting infront of the computer saying what they should have done but it's a bit different in real life when you are holding an item that's on fire.

i replied to this by musicmaker29

Originally Posted by musicmaker29
how hot is the fluid in an engine anyway? a fire next to a car wont necessarily blow up the car.......

ThumbRemote

But you don't seem to understand it didn't blow up the car so it has no relevance.

texranger

ThumbRemote wrote: »

But you don't seem to understand it didn't blow up the car so it has no relevance.

it could to an insurance company, you placed/dropped an item in flames next to a car with flammable petrol (the fumes could of ignited) this would have caused more damage if it ignited petrol fumes.

ThumbRemote

She could have dropped it on a dog.
It could have exploded and killed a child.
The smoke could have brought down an airliner.
The carbon dioxide could have triggered a tipping point in the earths atmosphere and brought the end of the world upon us.

None of those happened.
They are not relevant.

The fuel tank did not explode.
It too is not relevant.

texranger

ThumbRemote wrote: »

She could have dropped it on a dog.
It could have exploded and killed a child.
The smoke could have brought down an airliner.
The carbon dioxide could have triggered a tipping point in the earths atmosphere and brought the end of the world upon us.

None of those happened.
They are not relevant.

The fuel tank did not explode.
It too is not relevant.

LEARN TO READ

It COULD to an insurance company as she dropped/placed the burning item next to a car which IF ignited would have caused more damage

they could play this card to get out of paying for any damage to the car

If_it_can_go_wrong

She didn't choose to leave it next to the car. The flaming thing got too hot and she was forced to drop it on the way outside . I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. Her actions were perfectly reasonable.
I'm sure the op's wife knows the danger of flames and petrol and given the choice would not have dropped it there.

texranger

If_it_can_go_wrong wrote: »

She didn't choose to leave it next to the car. The flaming thing got too hot and she was forced to drop it on the way outside . I don't see what's difficult to understand about that. Her actions were perfectly reasonable.
I'm sure the op's wife knows the danger of flames and petrol and given the choice would not have dropped it there.

yes i understand, but will any insurance company, we all know they will try everything to not pay out.

i was just saying how an insurance company could look at it