I assume this is a theoretical question...short answer - yes, the occupier could be liable. Personally I would do worse to a burglar. The actual offence would depend to some extent whether the property was a domestic dwelling or a commercial property. Under the OLA 1957 as amended, a duty exists for trespassers as per 1984 amendment. In criminal law all I can think of is gross negligence manslaughter if the person should be killed. However it could be argued the occupier did not have a duty of care for the burglar or perhaps the 'but for' test may dictate the fire was a direct result of the burglarly.

Liable’ is a loaded word: if gives the impression that the full weight of the law would fall on you. I don’t think that would happen. There is a duty of care which exists as mentioned under the OLA 1984 but this is limited. See section 3 (3)(c) “the risk (for which the occupier is liable) is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection”. and “Section 3(6) No duty is owed by virtue of this section to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by that person” (the question whether a risk was so accepted to be decided on the same principles as in other cases in which one person owes a duty of care to another).” So essentially if a burglar gets himself into a situation where he kills himself the occupier cannot be led liable. If on the other hand the whole was set up was a trap to catch and ,possibly, kill a burglar then the law would come down on the occupier.

I agree with the above posts and I'm also interested how you think a fire may be accidentally be caused, it could hinge on things like this. Also if the place has poor security and is known to hold things that a thief would be very tempted by, there is a certain amount of foreseeability. Most would probably think serve them right, but a simple act of theft should not incur a death sentence, so the circumstances could allow it to go the other way. Say it is a child on a bet ! Most of the time signage is good enough make people aware of dangers, but not sure what sign you would put up for this.

Just put a notice up 'Burglars, do not light a fire if you can't get out' that should be enough. In america there was a case where the burglar got stuck in a garage for a few days and had to live off dog biscuits, the householder was found guilty of not providing a way out and had to pay compensation. The law in this country is just as barmy so nothing would surprise me.

I never asked you too.

The story about the burglar and the dog food is an urban myth and not actually true.

That case is a well-known hoax. Never believe any random email telling how terrible the world/courts/government is... If you're interested it usually only takes a minute or two to check. I don't think the law in this country IS barmy, and I think the courts do their best to make decent decisions - call me naive! Much of the time when you read about what looks like a crazy judgement it turns out there's more to the story than the papers report, or that one side simply made a terrible job of presenting their case.

Invictus It is true you did not say that US law applies here but you did mention an American case (which looks like it might be an urban myth) which implies that it is in someway relevant to the UK, which of course, it is not. Why bring it up?

I don't need to back up my post it was a question and I put an answer, basically stating it's ok saying no but when it gets to court it depends on how they rule!

Ignoring the urban myths from both sides of the pond. I've always assumed the duty stems from "you cannot set traps" and so long as you follow that, you can't go far wrong. Is this Civil or Criminal? I assume the former

Yes, but I always thought it was a little bit more than that. That is why you have to put signs up warning of barbed wire etc., that way they are making an informed decision. I seem to remember on my training course (will not say which one) being told of a case were some children entered into a secured/ fenced factory grounds and opened a valve which released unbeknown to them a harmful chemical, that made it out of the boundary and run down the road to where other children were playing. The gist of this particular training was that things should have warning signs and critical controls secured even in / on your own property. I was not trying to suggest you cannot lock final exit doors when no one there, but in OLA 1984 there is a reasonably clear description of your duty. I was just making a point that just because they broke in, there is no duty. The devil is always in the detail, in this case why the OP feels a fire may accidentally be started could (only could) be relevant. I think this because:- Duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors. (1)The rules enacted by this section shall have effect, in place of the rules of the common law, to determine — (a) whether any duty is owed by a person as occupier of premises to persons other than his visitors in respect of any risk of their suffering injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them; and and (3)An occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being his visitor) in respect of any such risk as is referred to in subsection (1) above if — (a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;

Doubtful. Occupier Liability is more concerned with traps for the unwary introduced by deliberate act or omission. Keeping premises secure (!) when unoccupied is an everyday expectation. Setting booby traps, inappropriate use of razor wire, unlit or uncovered trenches, etc. would be another matter.

No. So long as you had been reasonable in what you were doing with security and safety you wouldn't be liable.

Interesting, but I don't think it has been established whether the premises are a domestic household or a commercial property. I also suggest that tripping on a toy car is much different to padlocking a fire exit.

Who cares? Caveat Emptor!

If they would empt instead of burgling we wouldn't have this problem, or discussion!

This is soo… hypothetical! But let’s work our way through it…. A property owner is entitled to secure their property ie to lock and bar all of the doors and windows to make sure that nobody can break in and as long as the property is unoccupied he does not have to concern himself with any sort of escape routes. If someone breaks in and starts a fire and it blocks the intruder’s route that he used to enter the property of or he cannot use the route of entry can it be reasonable to expect the property owner to provide guaranteed escape routes for every set of circumstances that the intruder might find themselves caught up in? As the intruder was not a normal visitor it wold be Impossible to devise guaranteed escape routes for every room (including cupboards) ie the standard required would have to be HIGHER than that required for normal visitors. This is clearly not what the law intended and I cannot imagine the courts going for this approach.

What was he off duty and just visiting! It's implied through the question I would say.

Well if he/she has broke in, but can not get back out, he/she has not actually stolen anything (nothing removed from the premises). :0)

The burglar was caught again and sent down. The judge commented that he "wouldn't be let off the leash for a long time".